God bless America

On her autobiography “The Price of My soul”, Bernadette Devlin (yeah go Google her up, it's worth it) wrote that the title of the book does not imply anything about the monetary value of her soul, but merely the human experience of possessing one (my interpretation). Now I wouldn't want you to think I had sold myself off to the Yanks by merely judging this post from its title either. But when you see Uncle Sam chipping in positively on our behalf (4377, I could be much misguided here), it's only fair to give credit where it's due.

American foreign policy had always been a prickly issue as far as I am concerned, and I guess I am not in a club of one. Lo and behold, they suddenly had a change of heart and had been giving off some VERY positive vibes recently. Maybe Obummer is not as bad as some people make him out to be, who knows. Like hell I had been a fan of this guy since his first days (though I still put McCain on top, a man for whom I have great respect). Confusing? Get used to it kiddos, that's uniquely Sri Lankan.

So when it came to writing something about Uncle Sam, there was this internal conflict – which one to pick? Now Dubya is certainly out of question – who the f%$£ in his right mind would want to put him in a congratulatory blog, and the Presidential Clockmaker is a bit of a touchy subject, lest there be kids reading this and doing a bit of Googling.... Nah, these modern ones will not do. Rewind 150 odd years and you meet no lesser persona than Abe Lincoln. But if I ever had the impunity & insolence to write of Abe Lincoln myself, it would be desecration – and I know that. So rather I leave the great man to talk for himself, and do consider yourselves to be blessed for getting an offside opportunity to read his inauguration speech.

Ladies & gentlemen, His Excellency The President of the United States of America, Abraham Lincoln (on 4^th March 1861 at Washington, D.C.) :

Fellow-citizens of the United States:
In compliance with a custom as old as the government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly, and to take, in your presence, the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, to be taken by the President "before he enters on the execution of this office."

I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement.

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."

I now reiterate these sentiments; and in doing so, I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause -- as cheerfully to one section as to another.

There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:

"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it, for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the law-giver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution -- to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause, "shall be delivered," their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not, with nearly equal unanimity, frame and pass a law, by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?

There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by state authority; but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him, or to others, by which authority it is done. And should any one, in any case, be content that his oath shall go unkept, on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?

Again, in any law upon this subject, ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not, in any case, surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well, at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States"?

I take the official oath to-day, with no mental reservations, and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws, by any hypercritical rules. And while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to, and abide by, all those acts which stand unrepealed, than to violate any of them, trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.

It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our national Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens, have, in succession, administered the executive branch of the government. They have conducted it through many perils; and, generally, with great success. Yet, with all this scope for [of] precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years, under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.

I hold, that in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper, ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution, and the Union will endure forever -- it being impossible to destroy it, except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade, by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it -- break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that, in legal contemplation, the Union is perpetual, confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution, was "to form a more perfect Union." But if [the] destruction of the Union, by one, or by a part only, of the States, be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

It follows from these views that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union, -- that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken; and to the extent of my ability I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it, so far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means, or in some authoritative manner, direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.

In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion -- no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality, shall be so great and so universal, as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating, and so nearly impracticable with all, that I deem it better to forego, for the time, the uses of such offices.

The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible, the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed, unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper; and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised according to circumstances actually existing, and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles, and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections.

That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events, and are glad of any pretext to do it, I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak?

Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step, while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to, are greater than all the real ones you fly from? Will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?

All profess to be content in the Union, if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right, plainly written in the Constitution, has been denied? I think not. Happily the human mind is so constituted, that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers, a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution -- certainly would, if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities, and of individuals, are so plainly assured to them, by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution, that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate, nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.

From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the government must cease. There is no other alternative; for continuing the government, is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority, in such case, will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which, in turn, will divide and ruin them; for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy, a year or two hence, arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments, are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.

Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new Union, as to produce harmony only, and prevent renewed secession?

Plainly, the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy. A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it, does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.

I do not forget the position assumed by some, that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case, upon the parties to a suit; as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be over-ruled, and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink, to decide cases properly brought before them; and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.

One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive slave clause of the Constitution, and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade, are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, cannot be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections, than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction, in one section; while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all, by the other.

Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence, and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face to face; and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory, after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides, and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I cannot be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the national Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it.

I will venture to add that to me the Convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions, originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution, which amendment, however, I have not seen, has passed Congress, to the effect that the federal government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say that holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose; but the executive, as such, has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present government, as it came to his hands, and to transmit it, unimpaired by him, to his successor.

Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope, in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of nations, with his eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth, and that justice, will surely prevail, by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.

By the frame of the government under which we live, this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief; and have, with equal wisdom, provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals.

While the people retain their virtue and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the government in the short space of four years.

My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well, upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you, in hot haste, to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied, hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him, who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty.

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."

I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearth-stone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

On any given day

WOW it looks like I had drawn some negative attention from some people with my repeated rantings about the Canadian visa bastards. Some say the blogs are now shifting towards the cussing end of spectrum and looking like Eminem lyrics (while the Real Slim Shady himself is getting more mainstream!). Well, that may be true. But please don't expect me to go out there to molly coddle those bigoted racist bastards at the other end of the table any time soon.

Now don't let it sound like a black & white thing. This being my profession, I do know what stress these guys are under. And I also understand the need for an effective immigration control in those countries concerned. Most of all, each day I face the moral dilemma between helping out someone whom I know would overstay his welcome whither he goeth, (and) making a living. The problem is not whether those bogus asylum seekers and overstaying fellows are morally repugnant or not, but whether the means we employ to weed them out is morally repugnant. If some people who legally gain entry into either UK or Canada then revert to their natural form, then we got a bug in our system. Acting like right bastards is certainly not a strategy advisable to a nation's representatives overseas. That would only push some characters to become more devious and would also set stage for development of an underground visa racket. During the past decade many foreign missions have had their visa officers ensnared by these operatives and some had even taken matters into their own hands, Visa for Sex scandal in US embassy being a good example.

Think I am exaggerating? I kid you not fellers, going price of Canada visa is US$10,000 around here, and that is the fee of the visa bastard – the Agent of course charges more (about 20K or more). For some reason, I have not come across a “bought” visa for UK recently, but its only a matter of time I guess. Like in every good detective story, the trail runs cold sometimes.... only till a w@nker at the HC wakes up from his you know what induced myopia and develop hots for some real stuff... Things you could ill afford with salary but petty cash with what you get from selling one or a few of them stickers..

I do not pretend to have a solution here, but I suppose their own countries' legal systems ought to have adequate laws to deal with illegal immigration. If those laws you prefer to introduce to curb illegal immigration draw flack from your own population (as is the case in UK – or better still as in the case of defeat of that Carla Bruni hand job in France less than a week ago), then you got a major bug in your system. Now I don’t want to sound like a BNF sympathiser here, but I too believe those boys have a point there. It's no good when people in a certain country feel unsafe of their own culture and future well-being due to immigration. So I suggest that we allow those people who are genuine enough to come and visit (and then return back!), and even let those who make a genuine effort to integrate to stay. That’s just fine. If you honestly try to weed out those who try to exploit the system, then that too is fine with me. But this sledgehammer policy of murdering every applicant is incomprehensible to me and it's tainted with racism and prejudice. Would you like to be associated with such a clan?

Well, why don't you take just one look at the two HCs in question, there is no need to go in, a mere glance will suffice. Looking like unwelcoming fortresses, with those toss pots holed up in there behind bullet proof glass partitions, irreverent telephone skills coupled with zero public relations, they simply don't convey a positive message to anyone. No they don't cut a good image – with anyone. I once took a UK national to his own mission and just one look at the edifice did him in. He later told me he thought he was being taken to a Abu Ghraib style military establishment for questioning! Mind you, they'd been very polite once the fellow got inside, its just that edifice scares the shite out of any normal human being. So much for the image conveyed by representatives of friendly nations. Now don't tell me its security concerns coz whore houses and casinos here don't have fortress walls or toughened glass two way mirrors. Period.

Canadian Imports

Jeeves, am I not glad to see you. We have not been here for a while, have we? Actually many things did happen during the hiatus, like the Sinhala new year, the May Day, and even Vesak festival. The latter was only a couple of days ago. Now all these things are important, and in here Sinhala new year and Vesak are the biggest events since days immemorial. Actually I wanted to write about them, but the Canadian officer bastards got in the way. Is that news?

Are these critters more important to me than national events in my native land? Well, the obvious answer is a big no no. Alas, the New Year was ruined by the major a-holes who were in charge of coming up with the traditionally observed auspicious time. Accordingly to their charts it fell in some ungodly hour somewhere in the deep end of the night and I for one did not observe it nor did anyone else whom I knew. I don’t know these toss pots take themselves how seriously. Someone told me they came up with this time to satisfy the self styled king. Well I don’t know about that, but I have a low opinion of them (and besides, the king feller gets the blame for everything here these days).

Anyways this thing threw cold water on the whole set up and it was a half-hearted celebration and no one in his right mind wanted to write about it. I am not sure if I am in full control of my faculties though - for I have just written a whole para on that shebang. I ought to have my head examined, maybe.

Anyway let us now pay a courtesy call to our nice friends at the Canadian outfit in Colombo. It's always comforting to be in the company of friends, as the saying goes. Here is what our friends have to say. Relax kids, its written so they just can’t turn around and say no we did not say anything of that nature. No wonder they have confined themselves in a fortified castle here...

This is what they have to say to a work permit applicant: You do not have enough ties to your home country (Sri Lanka).

And this man is legally married with a wife, has got legit kids, got commitments like providing refuge to aged parents, has a house of his own and bit of money in the bank! If these are not ties to one’s native land, then I just can’t work out what else they could be. Worst of all this guy’s kids are still schooling, it's not like as if he were a deadbeat with kids old enough to buy Paris Hilton video off the local store.

I just have one question, what are the courts in Canada take as established ties in any legal scenario? I am not going to take that much further here coz I am taking it to human rights grounds in both Canada and internationally. But being curious is no crime, so I am just telling you to help me out a bit here. Just give me an inkling to what these visa bastards would accept as ties. Because, despite of the friendly & generous nature of their compatriots, people appointed to represent them here are nowhere near an average Canadian either morally or intellectually.

All in all, I feel self pity. You know, even Canadians could not afford to send out one decent soul down to this piss pot to represent their fine nation. Talk about the street creds of Sri Lanka in international arena.... And here I am, fated to share this plot of land in middle of Indian ocean with both local and imported w@nkers alike......