A few new things have popped up as of late, which I will share with you now. The first has to do with Psyche's Links ,a very comprehensive blog. It has its faults, of course,(as does mine and everyone else)but it's really very good. Anyhow,I was directed to another site, antiwar.com. Interesting...where have I heard of that site before? When I scoured the sites of my computer, I found the answer- I'd put them in the "recommended" section of my blog! How silly of me! You see, I had gotten some peace information that a good friend thought would be of interest to fellow bloggers. So...on it got put. But that's not all. Dr. Juan Cole was one of the principal authors of this particular emag. Dr. Cole and I have not met, but there are some interesting parallels in our lives. We both have a keen interest in history, modern in particular. We both have an interest in politics. And, most intriguing, our initial interest in joining the Baha'i faith, and eventual leaving thereof.
Anyway, please check out antiwar.com. It's located on the right-hand side. I think you'll find it engaging.
A quickie on another issue, namely mangas. What I've read is sometimes good, sometimes godawful, but then there are the true classics. I highly recommend Claudine...!. (Look for mangas rather than film)
Saturday, June 12
Thursday, June 10
Friday, May 28
Hello!
Hello,Wausau, (Brokaw)Wisconsin - Tulsa, Oklahoma - Seattle, Washington - Williston Park, New York - and Vancouver, British Columbia!
Thursday, May 27
defending my views
Pope- Thanks for reading! Here's Mr.Greenwald's which I believe defend my own:
Pope-
Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com wrote the following article. It's a bit long, but well worth the read:
Friday, May 21, 2010 13:22 ET
Obama wins the right to detain people with no habeas review
By Glenn Greenwald
*
Reuters/Jonathon Burch
A detainee holding cell is pictured at the detention centre at the U.S. Bagram Air Base, north of Kabul.
(updated below - Update II)
Few issues highlight Barack Obama's extreme hypocrisy the way that Bagram does. As everyone knows, one of George Bush’s most extreme policies was abducting people from all over the world -- far away from any battlefield -- and then detaining them at Guantanamo with no legal rights of any kind, not even the most minimal right to a habeas review in a federal court. Back in the day, this was called "Bush's legal black hole." In 2006, Congress codified that policy by enacting the Military Commissions Act, but in 2008, the Supreme Court, in Boumediene v. Bush, ruled that provision unconstitutional, holding that the Constitution grants habeas corpus rights even to foreign nationals held at Guantanamo. Since then, detainees have won 35 out of 48 habeas hearings brought pursuant to Boumediene, on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to justify their detention.
Immediately following Boumediene, the Bush administration argued that the decision was inapplicable to detainees at Bagram -- including even those detained outside of Afghanistan but then flown to Afghanistan to be imprisoned. Amazingly, the Bush DOJ -- in a lawsuit brought by Bagram detainees seeking habeas review of their detention -- contended that if they abduct someone and ship them to Guantanamo, then that person (under Boumediene) has the right to a habeas hearing, but if they instead ship them to Bagram, then the detainee has no rights of any kind. In other words, the detainee's Constitutional rights depends on where the Government decides to drop them off to be encaged. One of the first acts undertaken by the Obama DOJ that actually shocked civil libertarians was when, last February, as The New York Times put it, Obama lawyers "told a federal judge that military detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their imprisonment there, embracing a key argument of former President Bush’s legal team."
But last April, John Bates, the Bush-43-appointed, right-wing judge overseeing the case, rejected the Bush/Obama position and held that Boumediene applies to detainees picked up outside of Afghanistan and then shipped to Bagram. I reviewed that ruling here, in which Judge Bates explained that the Bagram detainees are "virtually identical to the detainees in Boumediene," and that the Constitutional issue was exactly the same: namely, "the concern that the President could move detainees physically beyond the reach of the Constitution and detain them indefinitely."
But the Obama administration was undeterred by this loss. They quickly appealed Judge Bates' ruling. As the NYT put it about that appeal: "The decision signaled that the administration was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight." Today, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the Bush/Obama position, holding that even detainees abducted outside of Afghanistan and then shipped to Bagram have no right to contest the legitimacy of their detention in a U.S. federal court, because Boumediene does not apply to prisons located within war zones (such as Afghanistan).
So congratulations to the United States and Barack Obama for winning the power to abduct people anywhere in the world and then imprison them for as long as they want with no judicial review of any kind. When the Boumediene decision was issued in the middle of the 2008 presidential campaign, John McCain called it "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." But Obama hailed it as "a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo," and he praised the Court for "rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus." Even worse, when Obama went to the Senate floor in September, 2006, to speak against the habeas-denying provisions of the Military Commissions Act, this is what he melodramatically intoned:
As a parent, I can also imagine the terror I would feel if one of my family members were rounded up in the middle of the night and sent to Guantanamo without even getting one chance to ask why they were being held and being able to prove their innocence. . . .
By giving suspects a chance -- even one chance -- to challenge the terms of their detention in court, to have a judge confirm that the Government has detained the right person for the right suspicions, we could solve this problem without harming our efforts in the war on terror one bit. . . .
Most of us have been willing to make some sacrifices because we know that, in the end, it helps to make us safer. But restricting somebody's right to challenge their imprisonment indefinitely is not going to make us safer. In fact, recent evidence shows it is probably making us less safe.
Can you smell the hypocrisy? How could anyone miss its pungent, suffocating odor? Apparently, what Obama called "a legal black hole at Guantanamo" is a heinous injustice, but "a legal black hole at Bagram" is the Embodiment of Hope. And evidently, Obama would only feel "terror" if his child were abducted and taken to Guantanamo and imprisoned "without even getting one chance to ask why and prove their innocence." But if the very same child were instead taken to Bagram and treated exactly the same way, that would be called Justice -- or, to use his jargon, Pragmatism. And what kind of person hails a Supreme Court decision as "protecting our core values" -- as Obama said of Boumediene -- only to then turn around and make a complete mockery of that ruling by insisting that the Cherished, Sacred Rights it recognized are purely a function of where the President orders a detainee-carrying military plane to land?
Independently, what happened to Obama's eloquent insistence that "restricting somebody's right to challenge their imprisonment indefinitely is not going to make us safer; in fact, recent evidence shows it is probably making us less safe"? How does our policy of invading Afghanistan and then putting people at Bagram with no charges of any kind dispose people in that country, and the broader Muslim world, to the United States? If a country invaded the U.S. and set up prisons where Americans from around the world where detained indefinitely and denied all rights to have their detention reviewed, how would it dispose you to the country which was doing that?
One other point: this decision is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court, which serves to further highlight how important the Kagan-for-Stevens replacement could be. If the Court were to accept the appeal, Kagan would be required to recuse herself (since it was her Solicitor General's office that argued the administration's position here), which means that a 4-4 ruling would be likely, thus leaving this appellate decision undisturbed. More broadly, though, if Kagan were as sympathetic to Obama's executive power claims as her colleagues in the Obama administration are, then her confirmation could easily convert decisions on these types of questions from a 5-4 victory (which is what Boumediene was, with Stevens in the majority) into a 5-4 defeat. Maybe we should try to find out what her views are before putting her on that Court for the next 40 years?
This is what Barack Obama has done to the habeas clause of the Constitution: if you are in Thailand (as one of the petitioners in this case was) and the U.S. abducts you and flies you to Guantanamo, then you have the right to have a federal court determine if there is sufficient evidence to hold you. If, however, President Obama orders that you be taken to from Thailand to Bagram rather than to Guantanamo, then you will have no rights of any kind, and he can order you detained there indefinitely without any right to a habeas review. That type of change is so very inspiring -- almost an exact replica of his vow to close Guantanamo . . . all in order to move its core attributes (including indefinite detention) a few thousand miles North to Thompson, Illinois.
Real estate agents have long emphasized "location, location, location" as the all-determining market factor. Before we elected this Constitutional Scholar as Commander-in-Chief, who knew that this platitude also shaped our entire Constitution?
UPDATE: Law Professor Steve Vladeck has more on the ruling, including "the perverse incentive that today's decision supports," as predicted by Justice Scalia in his Boumediene dissent: namely, that a President attempting to deny Constitutional rights to detainees can simply transfer them to a "war zone" instead of to Guantanamo and then claim that courts cannot interfere in the detention. Barack Obama quickly adopted that tactic for rendering the rights in Boumediene moot -- the same rights which, less than two years ago, he was praising the Supreme Court for safeguarding and lambasting the Bush administration for denying. Vladeck also explains why the appellate court's caveat -- that overt government manipulation to evade habeas rights (i.e., shipping them to a war zone with the specific intent of avoiding Boumediene) might alter the calculus -- is rather meaningless.
UPDATE II: Guest-hosting for Rachel Maddow last night, Chris Hayes talked with Shayana Kadidal of the Center for Constitutional Rights about the Bagram ruling and Obama's hypocrisy on these issues, and it was quite good, including a video clip of the 2006 Obama speech I excerpted above:
And in The New York Times, Charlie Savage has a typically thorough examination of the impact of the ruling. As he writes: "The decision was a broad victory for the Obama administration in its efforts to hold terrorism suspects overseas for indefinite periods without judicial oversight." But GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham (author of the habeas-denying provision in the Military Commissions Act) "called the ruling a 'big win' and praised the administration for appealing the lower court’s ruling," and that's what really matters.
----------
Greenwald remains one of the journalists I trust,and so I printed my opinion. If you have contact with another journalist whose outlook is different, please contact me immediately. I will be happy to retract my views.
Emily
Pope-
Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com wrote the following article. It's a bit long, but well worth the read:
Friday, May 21, 2010 13:22 ET
Obama wins the right to detain people with no habeas review
By Glenn Greenwald
*
Reuters/Jonathon Burch
A detainee holding cell is pictured at the detention centre at the U.S. Bagram Air Base, north of Kabul.
(updated below - Update II)
Few issues highlight Barack Obama's extreme hypocrisy the way that Bagram does. As everyone knows, one of George Bush’s most extreme policies was abducting people from all over the world -- far away from any battlefield -- and then detaining them at Guantanamo with no legal rights of any kind, not even the most minimal right to a habeas review in a federal court. Back in the day, this was called "Bush's legal black hole." In 2006, Congress codified that policy by enacting the Military Commissions Act, but in 2008, the Supreme Court, in Boumediene v. Bush, ruled that provision unconstitutional, holding that the Constitution grants habeas corpus rights even to foreign nationals held at Guantanamo. Since then, detainees have won 35 out of 48 habeas hearings brought pursuant to Boumediene, on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to justify their detention.
Immediately following Boumediene, the Bush administration argued that the decision was inapplicable to detainees at Bagram -- including even those detained outside of Afghanistan but then flown to Afghanistan to be imprisoned. Amazingly, the Bush DOJ -- in a lawsuit brought by Bagram detainees seeking habeas review of their detention -- contended that if they abduct someone and ship them to Guantanamo, then that person (under Boumediene) has the right to a habeas hearing, but if they instead ship them to Bagram, then the detainee has no rights of any kind. In other words, the detainee's Constitutional rights depends on where the Government decides to drop them off to be encaged. One of the first acts undertaken by the Obama DOJ that actually shocked civil libertarians was when, last February, as The New York Times put it, Obama lawyers "told a federal judge that military detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their imprisonment there, embracing a key argument of former President Bush’s legal team."
But last April, John Bates, the Bush-43-appointed, right-wing judge overseeing the case, rejected the Bush/Obama position and held that Boumediene applies to detainees picked up outside of Afghanistan and then shipped to Bagram. I reviewed that ruling here, in which Judge Bates explained that the Bagram detainees are "virtually identical to the detainees in Boumediene," and that the Constitutional issue was exactly the same: namely, "the concern that the President could move detainees physically beyond the reach of the Constitution and detain them indefinitely."
But the Obama administration was undeterred by this loss. They quickly appealed Judge Bates' ruling. As the NYT put it about that appeal: "The decision signaled that the administration was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight." Today, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the Bush/Obama position, holding that even detainees abducted outside of Afghanistan and then shipped to Bagram have no right to contest the legitimacy of their detention in a U.S. federal court, because Boumediene does not apply to prisons located within war zones (such as Afghanistan).
So congratulations to the United States and Barack Obama for winning the power to abduct people anywhere in the world and then imprison them for as long as they want with no judicial review of any kind. When the Boumediene decision was issued in the middle of the 2008 presidential campaign, John McCain called it "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." But Obama hailed it as "a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo," and he praised the Court for "rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus." Even worse, when Obama went to the Senate floor in September, 2006, to speak against the habeas-denying provisions of the Military Commissions Act, this is what he melodramatically intoned:
As a parent, I can also imagine the terror I would feel if one of my family members were rounded up in the middle of the night and sent to Guantanamo without even getting one chance to ask why they were being held and being able to prove their innocence. . . .
By giving suspects a chance -- even one chance -- to challenge the terms of their detention in court, to have a judge confirm that the Government has detained the right person for the right suspicions, we could solve this problem without harming our efforts in the war on terror one bit. . . .
Most of us have been willing to make some sacrifices because we know that, in the end, it helps to make us safer. But restricting somebody's right to challenge their imprisonment indefinitely is not going to make us safer. In fact, recent evidence shows it is probably making us less safe.
Can you smell the hypocrisy? How could anyone miss its pungent, suffocating odor? Apparently, what Obama called "a legal black hole at Guantanamo" is a heinous injustice, but "a legal black hole at Bagram" is the Embodiment of Hope. And evidently, Obama would only feel "terror" if his child were abducted and taken to Guantanamo and imprisoned "without even getting one chance to ask why and prove their innocence." But if the very same child were instead taken to Bagram and treated exactly the same way, that would be called Justice -- or, to use his jargon, Pragmatism. And what kind of person hails a Supreme Court decision as "protecting our core values" -- as Obama said of Boumediene -- only to then turn around and make a complete mockery of that ruling by insisting that the Cherished, Sacred Rights it recognized are purely a function of where the President orders a detainee-carrying military plane to land?
Independently, what happened to Obama's eloquent insistence that "restricting somebody's right to challenge their imprisonment indefinitely is not going to make us safer; in fact, recent evidence shows it is probably making us less safe"? How does our policy of invading Afghanistan and then putting people at Bagram with no charges of any kind dispose people in that country, and the broader Muslim world, to the United States? If a country invaded the U.S. and set up prisons where Americans from around the world where detained indefinitely and denied all rights to have their detention reviewed, how would it dispose you to the country which was doing that?
One other point: this decision is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court, which serves to further highlight how important the Kagan-for-Stevens replacement could be. If the Court were to accept the appeal, Kagan would be required to recuse herself (since it was her Solicitor General's office that argued the administration's position here), which means that a 4-4 ruling would be likely, thus leaving this appellate decision undisturbed. More broadly, though, if Kagan were as sympathetic to Obama's executive power claims as her colleagues in the Obama administration are, then her confirmation could easily convert decisions on these types of questions from a 5-4 victory (which is what Boumediene was, with Stevens in the majority) into a 5-4 defeat. Maybe we should try to find out what her views are before putting her on that Court for the next 40 years?
This is what Barack Obama has done to the habeas clause of the Constitution: if you are in Thailand (as one of the petitioners in this case was) and the U.S. abducts you and flies you to Guantanamo, then you have the right to have a federal court determine if there is sufficient evidence to hold you. If, however, President Obama orders that you be taken to from Thailand to Bagram rather than to Guantanamo, then you will have no rights of any kind, and he can order you detained there indefinitely without any right to a habeas review. That type of change is so very inspiring -- almost an exact replica of his vow to close Guantanamo . . . all in order to move its core attributes (including indefinite detention) a few thousand miles North to Thompson, Illinois.
Real estate agents have long emphasized "location, location, location" as the all-determining market factor. Before we elected this Constitutional Scholar as Commander-in-Chief, who knew that this platitude also shaped our entire Constitution?
UPDATE: Law Professor Steve Vladeck has more on the ruling, including "the perverse incentive that today's decision supports," as predicted by Justice Scalia in his Boumediene dissent: namely, that a President attempting to deny Constitutional rights to detainees can simply transfer them to a "war zone" instead of to Guantanamo and then claim that courts cannot interfere in the detention. Barack Obama quickly adopted that tactic for rendering the rights in Boumediene moot -- the same rights which, less than two years ago, he was praising the Supreme Court for safeguarding and lambasting the Bush administration for denying. Vladeck also explains why the appellate court's caveat -- that overt government manipulation to evade habeas rights (i.e., shipping them to a war zone with the specific intent of avoiding Boumediene) might alter the calculus -- is rather meaningless.
UPDATE II: Guest-hosting for Rachel Maddow last night, Chris Hayes talked with Shayana Kadidal of the Center for Constitutional Rights about the Bagram ruling and Obama's hypocrisy on these issues, and it was quite good, including a video clip of the 2006 Obama speech I excerpted above:
And in The New York Times, Charlie Savage has a typically thorough examination of the impact of the ruling. As he writes: "The decision was a broad victory for the Obama administration in its efforts to hold terrorism suspects overseas for indefinite periods without judicial oversight." But GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham (author of the habeas-denying provision in the Military Commissions Act) "called the ruling a 'big win' and praised the administration for appealing the lower court’s ruling," and that's what really matters.
----------
Greenwald remains one of the journalists I trust,and so I printed my opinion. If you have contact with another journalist whose outlook is different, please contact me immediately. I will be happy to retract my views.
Emily
Hello!
Welcome, Essex, Vermont - Williston Park, New York - Perth, Scotland - and Charlottesville, Virginia!
Sunday, May 23
A troubling sign
President Barack Obama has, on the large scheme of things, been a decent President. There has been, however, a glaring exception to the rule. This will not go away easily. When Timothy McVeigh was arrested for his many, many crimes in Oklahoma City, he nevertheless was read his rights under the Constitution. He was tried, convicted, incarcerated, and ultimately executed - all the time knowing his rights. I personally oppose the death penalty, but if McVeigh could know his rights yet still wind up in the death chamber, I have to admit the US had a helluva good case.
Now what is the difference between Timothy McVeigh and other people arrested in other countries? I can think of three reasons:
1) They are of the "wrong" color.
2) They were born in the "wrong" country.
3) They belong to the "wrong" religion.
Please, President Obama, let these men and women be afforded their basic human rights. Our country is better when we do this.
Now what is the difference between Timothy McVeigh and other people arrested in other countries? I can think of three reasons:
1) They are of the "wrong" color.
2) They were born in the "wrong" country.
3) They belong to the "wrong" religion.
Please, President Obama, let these men and women be afforded their basic human rights. Our country is better when we do this.
Wednesday, May 19
Hello!
Welcome to Summerville and Bluffton, South Carolina, Kent, Washington(state) and Minneapolis, Minnesota!
Friday, May 14
Send some deserving trolls to ***JAIL***
If you live near one of the cites in the US, ***please*** pay special attention to those pictured. They were murdered. Why? The "crime" of wearing women's clothing. (or in the case of women, wearing men's clothing)That's it. That's their "crime". If you know anything about these murders, contact the local city or town police. Thanks for your help.
Name:Ashley Santiago Ocasio
Place of killing: Corozal, PR
Time or date of attack: mid-April
Age of victim: 31
Please contact Puerto Rico or San Juan police
Ashley Santiago Ocasio
Name: Myra Ical
Age of victim: 51
Time or date of attack: January 18
Place of attack: Houston, TX
Please contact Houston, Texas 713-308-3600
![]()
Name:Ashley Santiago Ocasio
Place of killing: Corozal, PR
Time or date of attack: mid-April
Age of victim: 31
Please contact Puerto Rico or San Juan police
Ashley Santiago Ocasio
Name: Myra Ical
Age of victim: 51
Time or date of attack: January 18
Place of attack: Houston, TX
Please contact Houston, Texas 713-308-3600
Thursday, May 13
Wednesday, May 12
I'm one of those few who genuinely like most politicians. No, honest, really. They visit with every loon or nutcase that comes along, no matter how carefully she/he crafted the work. Add to that the hordes of lobbyists that come their way. No matter where on the spectrum they may fall, theirs is the Word of God.
This is not the case of "Senator" Tom Colapietro.
We are all aware
Tuesday, May 4
Wednesday, April 28
An important site
I decided to take a few seconds to inform you of an important site, www.psyche.com or Psyche's Links, listed above. It's fantastic and VERY thorough.
Thursday, April 22
Sunday, April 18
Gettin' Round(check this for more info)
Hey folks-
Last night I was in here, tapping away on my computer, when I overheard a conversation between two people sitting behind me. I'll paraphrase:
"Yeah, he just loves trains. Last year he took a train from Hartford to DC, then back. That's how much he loves them."
I don't know the guy's name,but I certainly can commiserate with him. I just wish our legislators would feel half as energetic.
Along the shoreline, CT residents have it just fine. (Well,relatively speaking.) But move just a bit north, and it's Sahara in Connecticut. And in this state, we aren't exactly fighting back the sand dunes either.
I did a little checking, one the Hartford(Connecticut)-Boston route, the other the Paris-Nantes route. In case you're wondering, Paris-Nantes is about twice the distance of Hartford-Boston. Check that. Twice. Okay,you say. twice the distance, twice the number of hours to get there. Except, that's not true. At its fastest, French trains are twice as fast as American ones.
Next, I would like to discuss number of trips per day. For those who have spent their life in the US, they probably say, "Well, that's not bad. Morning, afternoon, and evening - that's really not so bad".
Well, let's compare that to the Paris-Nantes example. Paris sends out twenty-one trains per day. On the route back, Nantes sends out twenty-three trains per day. If you miss the train in Hartford, wait several hours. If you miss the train in Paris or Nantes, you never wait more than an hour.
Finally, price. Amtrak's is a bit confusing, one saying $100, the other having three tiers:$82.00, 77.00, or 57.00. Now, 57 dollars seems reasonable - until you realize the French are offering twice the distance at the rate of $62.00. (roughly, a New York City - Boston trip)
o
By the way, did I mention the hour and a half wait you have between trains when you get to New Haven?
Now, I'm not waving a "Let's beat Paris!" flag in people's faces. Nor am I saving my pennies for a Paris move. Much as I love the cite it's New England that I truly love. To the rest of the nation, all I can say is compare your train service to that of RailEurope. Then, if you're truly steamed - don't call Amtrak. Contact your Congressperson. Contact your Senators. Contact the President. Tell them we don't need roads any more, we need rails - immediately.
Thanks for listening. If you send it out send me a quick Twitter or e-mail.
Last night I was in here, tapping away on my computer, when I overheard a conversation between two people sitting behind me. I'll paraphrase:
"Yeah, he just loves trains. Last year he took a train from Hartford to DC, then back. That's how much he loves them."
I don't know the guy's name,but I certainly can commiserate with him. I just wish our legislators would feel half as energetic.
Along the shoreline, CT residents have it just fine. (Well,relatively speaking.) But move just a bit north, and it's Sahara in Connecticut. And in this state, we aren't exactly fighting back the sand dunes either.
I did a little checking, one the Hartford(Connecticut)-Boston route, the other the Paris-Nantes route. In case you're wondering, Paris-Nantes is about twice the distance of Hartford-Boston. Check that. Twice. Okay,you say. twice the distance, twice the number of hours to get there. Except, that's not true. At its fastest, French trains are twice as fast as American ones.
Next, I would like to discuss number of trips per day. For those who have spent their life in the US, they probably say, "Well, that's not bad. Morning, afternoon, and evening - that's really not so bad".
Well, let's compare that to the Paris-Nantes example. Paris sends out twenty-one trains per day. On the route back, Nantes sends out twenty-three trains per day. If you miss the train in Hartford, wait several hours. If you miss the train in Paris or Nantes, you never wait more than an hour.
Finally, price. Amtrak's is a bit confusing, one saying $100, the other having three tiers:$82.00, 77.00, or 57.00. Now, 57 dollars seems reasonable - until you realize the French are offering twice the distance at the rate of $62.00. (roughly, a New York City - Boston trip)
o
By the way, did I mention the hour and a half wait you have between trains when you get to New Haven?
Now, I'm not waving a "Let's beat Paris!" flag in people's faces. Nor am I saving my pennies for a Paris move. Much as I love the cite it's New England that I truly love. To the rest of the nation, all I can say is compare your train service to that of RailEurope. Then, if you're truly steamed - don't call Amtrak. Contact your Congressperson. Contact your Senators. Contact the President. Tell them we don't need roads any more, we need rails - immediately.
Thanks for listening. If you send it out send me a quick Twitter or e-mail.
Saturday, April 10
Wednesday, April 7
Thursday, March 18
Hello! When I first started, I was waxing poet-ish-ly about the wonders of the computer. Ha! you say, you abandoned me. Yes, I did, and I'm truly sorry. One thing that has really happy is the successful launching of the a href - /a programs. For those of you who as daffy as me, it means certain important words will be brought to your attention, with the option of clicking over to the areas of even greater possibilities.or
Thursday, October 8
Barack Obama
Good evening, all. It's been awhile, but it's really been worth it. You see, I'm working on my own computer. Not that the library's has been a tremendous resource, (and it has been one, I'm telling you) but this is, well, nice. For one thing, I've got a cup of coffee close to me. (For those of you who are coffee-deprived, you understand.) For another, I have beautiful jazz playing for me.
OK, now for the more serious topic. For one thing, I do not want it that I wish it that Barack Obama be bashed. Not in the very least. In the military, he's planning on wiping clean the noxious "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
OK, now for the more serious topic. For one thing, I do not want it that I wish it that Barack Obama be bashed. Not in the very least. In the military, he's planning on wiping clean the noxious "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
Tuesday, August 11
Tuesday, July 21
grumbling
Sorry for the bit of a pause I entered into. First a bit of grumbling. In my former hometown (Plainville, CT) there was a man who decided to teach his dog a lesson. So he hit the dog's back with a loaded staplegun. Several times. I often think about the legalities of a person being kicked out of the country, but in this case, the government was entirely within its rights. I woulda flown the plane out of the country myself.
(continued)
(continued)
Wednesday, May 20
'bout freekin' time!!!
I repeat- 'bout freekin' time. After a LONG delay, I finally got a housr of my own. Well, apartment actually, but it is very much my own. Scary? Well, yes. But I don't think that's abnormal at all.
Thursday, April 23
Tuesday, March 10
ways to save money
I have been watching the news lately, not with a little bemusement. We hear - let us cut the bullshit, those that we do allow to stay, let us cut (or eliminate) their benefits. Hogwash. I can think of three moves which can be taken quite speedily.
- I like Jim Calhoun. I like basketball. Hell, I don't want wish to see Gampel Pavillion torn to shreds. What I do not wish to see is Jim Calhoun "earning" a 1.6 dollar paycheck. A $300,000 check will do quite nicely. And if he balks at this, wish him good luck as he leaves.
- The one thing M. Jodi Rell does not deserve is a mansion, even a relatively small one. Sell it. And sell the car too.
- This one is fairly controversial. I do have compassion for the victims, despite my own opposition to the death penalty. But look at the facts: $750,000 for a lifer, over $1 million for the death penalty. Enough said.
Thursday, February 26
What is real--what is not
Well, the President gave his first speech tonight. And what was my view? Overall it was between good and very good. However, there were two points (IMHO) that bear addressing.
- Clean coal "technology". This belonged to a laundry list of various technologies including wind, solar, ect. How does wind and solar differ from clean coal? First, you have to mitigate - not eliminate - the coal effluvia. Second, when coal is gone, it is indeed gone. Third, the taking of coal is significantly more than the other technologies. Please, Mr. President, let us sack this expensive and unnecessary goal.
- I waited and waited for a bold, real healthcare move. Unfortunately, I waited in vain. I do believe there are areas where Republicans and Democrats can work together, but this ain't one of them. Let us have real healthcare now.
Wednesday, February 18
Monday, January 26
Where am I?
Just a quick note-- I'm going to see how having a meeting at Starbucks of West Hartford CT (Albany Avenue section) would work out. Meetings will be held at 3 pm, Sundays, weather permitting. (I'm in a wheelchair, so I hope you understand)
Thursday, January 22
A View From Obama
A few day's later, how fresh it all seems! I know, I know, for some of us it all seems a bit wearying, but look past the hype and look at the real substance we face:
- a freeze of all salaries that are $100,000
- a tremendous curtailing of lobbyists
- a real open door who want to see what is going on in Washington
There are a quibbles, to be sure. But on the whole, it looks great.
Thursday, January 8
Monday, January 5
First of all, hello, Forres!
When the youth of America gets together, amazing things happen. College campuses were once a hotbed of political activity. Students of the 60s were responsible for great changes, politically and socially. The youth movement launched and defined what we've become since the 60s. I would like that happen again.
Tom Ford, American fashion designer
To Quote a Queer, ed. John Lessard
Saturday, January 3
Happy New Year!!! OK, I realize it's been awhile since I've posted, but here's a brief one.
I recently started To Quote a Queer, and have found it tremendously enjoyable. I will occasionally share a quote from here. Hope you find it it either profound or hilarious - or both.
I am gay, black, British, smart, dumb, patronising, stubborn, all these other things - flawed in many ways - and I am now asserting my activism.
John Amechi, British NBA basketball player
To Quote a Queer, ed. John Lessard
Saturday, December 13
Things I'll be working on
As I was going in and out of sleep the other night, I had an idea. Working as a manager (of sorts) I could provide an e-newsletter where authors of my opinions could write articles, fictions, and art. Here are a few things I'm looking tor:
- As a preview, a short bit about what you've been up to. Generally, I dislike silliness.
- Fiction or non-fiction, I tend to like GLBT and what "handicaps" tend to do to them.
- Sci-fi is liked; screeds not much so.
- Art is good, with manga/mangaesque particularly so.
Think I'll like them? Send them in.
Tuesday, November 18
Tuesday, October 28
Dunderheads, Unite!
OK, I'm a bit pissed off. Make it very. It seems that a bunch of skinhead philosophes decided to wipe out Barack Obama and other candidates. Is this really happening? I don't need you, Connecticut doesn't need you, the whole !$#@&@^ United States doesn't need you!
Go away, dunderheads. Like to Pluto.
Go away, dunderheads. Like to Pluto.
Saturday, October 25
The Big President
Here's a quick piece of information for you. The New York Times chose Barack Obama over John McCain in their choice for president. Granted, the Times does have its flaws (mostly very minor} but this pick is a good one.
Friday, October 17
Tuesday, October 14
a note to my friends
In October of 2008, an event of truly historic proportions took place. Many of you might be saying "Yeah, sure. I've seen it all before." Most times, yes, but definitely not this time. If you've been busy contemplating in a cave or trekking the Himalayas, what has happened as a result of a Connecticut Supreme Court decision granting full marriage rights as a result of a 4-3 decision for gays, lesbians, and transsexuals.
Right now, there is a conservative group pushing for a last-minute amendment. If you are of the legendary 10%, I don't really need to make the case to you. However, I make the case for the following larger group.
Right now, there is a conservative group pushing for a last-minute amendment. If you are of the legendary 10%, I don't really need to make the case to you. However, I make the case for the following larger group.
- It is a waste of money when the budget is already scarce.
- Even if everyone in your household is heterosexual, chances are very good you have a homosexual in your neighborhood. And chances are very good they are NOT an ogre.
- It's the decent thing to do in any neighborhood.
Having made my points, I urge you to vote NO.
Thursday, September 25
Thanks, belatedly, for those who participated in the last poll. There were two who voted, one who was more likely to vote for a John McCain/Sarah Palin ticket, another who was neither more nor less likely to vote for McCain/Palin candidacy.
This poll is a repeat, but with Cynthia McKinney added to the mix. She is the Green Party candidate.
Thursday, September 11
Tuesday, September 9
Our Conundrum
God's Problem
Bart D. Ehrman
HarperOne
In Bart D. Ehrman's book God's Problem, an ancient difficulty is examined by Ehrman. On one hand, we have the " all loving" God (with many, many exceptions) ,the horrific world in which we find ourselves living. If we find ourselves living in the world Ehrman does, it is not a happy scene at all, despite protestations to the contrary.
Ehrman seems to be in a constant wrestling match between God (traditionally created) and all the agonies we face. However, the books are - for lack of a better term - a more holistic vision. While any Bible or Torah is certainly a wide-ranging text, what can Ahura Mazda say to us? Or Krishna? How can the writers of Talmud affect or color the original texts? In the more modern version, how can Thomas Merton (whom I greatly admire) affect our ways of thinking?
I don't think what is generated is as much a tabula rasa as much as a tabula "holistica". Do I believe that any thinking will see suffering wiped out, or, more realistically, understand it? Of course not. But what I can do is alleviate the suffering, and protest the outrages. This is one area in which Ehrman and I can agree.
I myself have accepted Buddhist teachings. However, Thich Nhat Hanh has, ironically, felt a deep appreciation for Christian teachings. Not in the very traditional sense, but it is there. Perhaps if we see more holistically, we will see more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)