Cintra Wilson in today's Salon...
People looked genuinely terrified by the time-constraints, this year, when it came to their speeches -- Charlie Kaufman finally clued us in that Oscar winners, during their speech, were being shown an "intimidating" 30-second countdown clock, which I then reasoned was inter-spliced with subliminal pictures of a .44 Magnum, inter-spliced with pictures of the speech-giver's family.
Via Slashdot, I learn that the president of the American Library Association has discovered bloggers, and he thinks they are B-A-D NEWS. And not bad-meaning-good, either. It seems that this piece was the result of a flame war, which in turn was the result of an editorial he wrote which was critical of Google's library digitalization project.
His sins against bloggery multiply in this piece...My piece had the temerity to question the usefulness of Google digitizing millions of books and making bits of them available via its notoriously inefficient search engine... Hailed as the ultimate example of information retrieval, Google is, in fact, the device that gives you thousands of "hits" (which may or may not be relevant) in no very useful order.
Those characteristics are ignored and excused by those who think that Google is the creation of "God's mind," because it gives the searcher its heaps of irrelevance in nanoseconds. Speed is of the essence to the Google boosters, just as it is to consumers of fast "food," but, as with fast food, rubbish is rubbish, no matter how speedily it is delivered.
In the eyes of bloggers, my sin lay in suggesting that Google is OK at giving access to random bits of information but would be terrible at giving access to the recorded knowledge that is the substance of scholarly books. I went further and came up with the unoriginal idea that the thing to do with a scholarly book is to read it, preferably not on a screen. It turns out that the Blog People (or their subclass who are interested in computers and the glorification of information) have a fanatical belief in the transforming power of digitization and a consequent horror of, and contempt for, heretics who do not share that belief.
How could I possibly be against access to the world's knowledge? Of course, like most sane people, I am not against it and, after more than 40 years of working in libraries, am rather for it. I have spent a lot of my long professional life working on aspects of the noble aim of Universal Bibliographic Control—a mechanism by which all the world's recorded knowledge would be known, and available, to the people of the world. My sin against bloggery is that I do not believe this particular project will give us anything that comes anywhere near access to the world's knowledge.
A blog is a species of interactive electronic diary by means of which the unpublishable, untrammeled by editors or the rules of grammar, can communicate their thoughts via the web. (Though it sounds like something you would find stuck in a drain, the ugly neologism blog is a contraction of "web log.")
and
It is obvious that the Blog People read what they want to read rather than what is in front of them and judge me to be wrong on the basis of what they think rather than what I actually wrote. Given the quality of the writing in the blogs I have seen, I doubt that many of the Blog People are in the habit of sustained reading of complex texts. It is entirely possible that their intellectual needs are met by an accumulation of random facts and paragraphs.
What on earth is he going on about? This is a great deal of bile over a pointless argument which was started... why, exactly?
I use Google many times a day, and I have no recollection of their
mission
statement saying anything about destroying all the books and libraries,
or destroying
the written word. It's a tool, based on technology, and naturally
enough, the
Google folks want to see how far they can take it. There is a
conversation to
be had about the dangers of a public library being coopted by the
private domain,
and a conversation to be had about the pitfalls in trying to preserve
digital
information, but he's not having that conversation. He's having a
rant.
Meanwhile this guy wants to have it both ways. On the one hand, he complains about the massive amounts of crap information available in cyberspace. Yet when a company attempts to put massive amounts of authoritative information online, he still has a problem with it.
I have no doubt that many of the people who responded to his snotty editorial (and it was snotty) were really rude. But to dismiss the whole blogosphere makes no sense. It's like dismissing every journalist because of Jeff Gannon (OK, so that's happening) or every professor because of Ward Churchill (OK, so that's happening too...). Who blogs? Lots of people who can't really write very well, true. But also: journalists. Professors. Legal experts. Published nonfiction authors. The website is only as good as the brain behind it. The web and the blog are publishing mediums, just with different technologies and time frames.
Personally, as a literature major who loves books (and owns way too many of them), and as a graduate of what used to be a library school, as a person who makes her living on the web, who relies heavily on Google and whose office is filled with paper, I think this guy is full of it.
But I do have to thank the author for making it even clearer than ever
why
I should join the Special
Library
Association and not the American Library Association!
Oh, Ashcroft! "Ashcroft's name substitutes for obscenity in movie." (Hint, the first two letters of the word are the same, and there's definitely an "h" in there too.)
And I'd read a romance novel called For the Love of Scottie McMullet or Lord of the Tube Socks any day. Too bad these titles only exist in the twisted but brilliant mind of this guy.
"Social Security has got to go"? See college Republicans at their finest, showing their support for Rick Santorum and taking the gloves off. The video is below the cut (Flash format)...
The shorter Cinnamon Stillwell (with apologies to Busy, Busy, Busy...)
I used to shamelessly stereotype the Right, until I found that it was more emotionally satisfying to shamelessly stereotype the Left. (Also, somebody seems to have stolen my brain, can I have it back please?)
Seriously, if I read one more, "Gosh, I was all liberal and patchouli-wearing and peace-sign-waving, and then September 11 happened, and I realized liberals really Just Don't Get It and they hate America..." narrative, I really will puke in my mouth.
I went and saw Caroline, or Change a month or so ago. I thought it was good, yet perhaps not as amazing as all the reviews I'd read of it had led me to believe. (I'm a bit particular about my musicals, especially ones with singing children.) Still, it did do a good job of capturing the squeamish relationship between well-meaning liberals and the black people who work(ed) for them. Or so I thought. This letter-writer to the J. thunk different:
My wife and I went to see the highly acclaimed play à ¬Caroline, or Change à ® (Jan. 21 j.) yesterday and were deeply offended by the gratuitous exploitation of Jews.
Jews and their love of money serve as a convenient backdrop for the playwright s unsuccessful attempt to work out his own guilt-ridden angst about being a modern Jew.
This play, really a mini-opera with no memorable tunes, is a missed opportunity where the two groups, Jews and blacks (both with a history of slavery), never connect.
I almost walked out when Caroline says the harsh and unnecessary line à à ®Hell is the place where Jews go when they die. à ®
At a time when Israel fights for its very survival, and Jews again are experiencing global anti-Semitism, this play further feeds the flames of Jewish stereotypes by depicting Jews as more concerned with pocket change left in the basement às washer where the maid Caroline works than with the internal struggles of the black protagonist.
Readers should save their precious time and avoid this play.
Um... Did he expect Caroline to suddenly stop in the middle of the action and give a speech about the Ãeternal solidarity between blacks and Jews? Did he not notice that the little boy called her names too? Did the context ³ the South in the early 1960s à ³ totally pass him by?
Just how narrowminded and narrowsighted do you have to be?
...[M]any opponents of same-sex marriage insist marriage is primarily about only one objective à ó procreation and the preservation of the species. Indeed, it is on this issue that debate about same-sex marriage simply falls apart ³ with proponents of such marriages shaking their heads in disbelief, and trying to find some tactful way to say that the arguments of opponents seem unintelligible.
To put it simply, in our view, marriage is about children, commitment and responsibility, and love and sex. Let's take the bull by the horns and talk about the last factor first.
Sex is a powerful force in most people's lives. Entirely unconstrained, it can be disruptive, abusive, and even dangerous. Both the individuals involved and society benefit when sexual activities occur in loving, long-term, monogamous relationships.
This is true whether or not a couple has children. It is true for gays and lesbians as well as heterosexuals. Relationships of this kind further personal and public health goals, social stability, psychological well-being, and for most people, personal happiness.
The institution of marriage promotes loving, long-term, monogamous relationships which in turn further the aforementioned, valuable social and personal purposes. Prior to the debate about same-sex marriage, we thought the above contention was a fundamental axiom of conservative thought. Today, however, this basic understanding seems to have been forgotten by conservatives. Liberals who are traditionalists about marriage, like us, simply cannot understand this change in attitude.
Recognizing the role that marriage plays in providing a constrained and positive framework for the expression of sexual feelings is intrinsic to our understanding of the meaning and scope of this institution. That is why arguments by opponents of same-sex marriage about extending marriage to two brothers or a mother and daughter living together are irrelevant. Those relationships aren't sexual in nature. Providing a framework for sexual intimacy to take place is one of the unique virtues of marriage as a formal institution.
 |  |
| 
|
As
I expected, he's quite a character! Very blunt and no-nonsense about
his life and his opinions on things. He still doesn't think too highly
of David Letterman...
The funniest part was when he opined that the comics world was in a
bit of a decline. Its heyday was apparently in the early 1970s, with a
brief revival in the 1980s, but now... not so much.
So someone raised their hand and asked, "What about
so-and-so?" "Oh, he's all right."
A second person gives it a shot. "What about this other
artist?" "Eh... I'm not familiar with his work."
And so on. I thought about raising my head and asking about web comics
(I'm quite enjoying Hereville)
but chickened out.
Eventually he admitted that the independent comic book retail scene
in Cleveland isn't quite what it should be. Perhaps that would account
for the lack of familiarity?
Anyway, later on I went to Keith Knight's booth, and while
browsing his books, noticed some words of praise from Pekar. So there is a
modern cartoonist he likes!
More later.
"One beauty of Darwinism is the intellectual freedom it allows. As
the
arch-evolutionist Richard Dawkins has observed, 'Darwin made it
possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.' But Darwinism
permits you to be an intellectually fulfilled theist, too. That is why
Pope John Paul II was comfortable declaring that evolution has been
'proven true'' and that 'truth cannot contradict
truth.' If God
created the universe wholesale rather than retail
Ã
³ endowing it from
the start with an evolutionary algorithm that progressively teased
complexity out of chaos
Ã
³ then imperfections in nature would be a
necessary part of a beautiful process."
Ã
³ "Unintelligent Design" by Jim Holt in the New
York Times Magazine
Women feel it the most. Thereà à s an almost constant pressure in Baghdad from these parties for women to cover up what little they have showing. ÃThere s a pressure in many colleges for the segregation of males and females. There are the threats, and the printed and verbal warnings, and sometimes we hear of attacks or insults.
You feel it all around you. It begins slowly and almost insidiously. You stop wearing slacks or jeans or skirts that show any leg because you don à t want to be stopped in the street and lectured by someone who doesn à t approve. You stop wearing short sleeves and start preferring wider shirts with a collar that will cover up some of you neck. You stop letting your hair flow because you don à t want to attract attention to it. On the days when you forget to pull it back into a ponytail, you want to kick yourself and you rummage around in your handbag trying to find a hair band à – hell, a rubber band to pull back your hair and make sure you attract less attention from *them*.
We were seriously discussing this situation the other day with a friend. The subject of the veil and hijab came up and I confessed my fear that while they might not make it a law, there would be enough pressure to make it a requirement for women when they leave their homes. He shrugged his shoulders and said, à ¬Well women in Iran will tell you it à s not so bad- you know that they just throw something on their heads and use makeup and go places, etc. ® True enough. But it wasnà à t like that at the beginning. It took them over two decades to be able to do that. In the eighties, women were hauled off the streets and detained or beaten for the way they dressed.
It à s also not about covering the hair. I have many relatives and friends who wore a hijab before the war. It à s the principle. It à s having so little freedom that even your wardrobe is dictated. And wardrobe is just the tip of the iceberg. There are Ãclerics and men who believe women shouldn t be able to work or that they shouldn à t be allowed to do certain jobs or study in specific fields. Something that disturbed me about the election forms was that it indicated whether the voter was à «male à or à «female à - why should that matter? Could it be because in Shari à Ãa, a women s vote or voice counts for half of that of a man? Will they implement that in the future?
THE strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by human activity has emerged from a study of rising temperatures in the oceans.The rise in marine temperatures à ³ by an average of 0.5C (0.9F) in 40 years ³ can be explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible, research has shown. The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study said yesterday.
à à ¬The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people, à ® said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. à ¬The models got it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable. ®
Now what politician could that be?
In the last few months alone, Schwarzenegger has reneged on well-publicized commitments made to educators, environmentalists, public servants à ± and voters.He promised teachers and students last spring that if they agreed not to fight his plan to withhold $2 billion owed to them, he would never again dip into money earmarked for schools to balance his budget. "Trust me," he said. "Over my dead body," he guaranteed. But at a time when a recent Rand Corporation study reports that California ranks near the bottom nationally in both school funding and student performance, Schwarzenegger's new budget gives schools $2.8 billion less than they are owed. He promised environmental groups that he would not support Prop. 64, a Chamber of Commerce-sponsored initiative that prevents citizens from using the courts to protect consumers and the environment. The California League of Conservation Voters plaintively called his promise "a commitment he personally gave to environmentalists." Then he turned around and endorsed Prop. 64, which, with his considerable weight behind it, passed.
He promised State Sen. Gil Cedillo that he would back a revised bill to allow illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses. Based on this pledge, Cedillo agreed to help repeal his own law. After the two came to their agreement, Cedillo asked Schwarzenegger if they should put their deal in writing. "He shook my hand," remembers Cedillo, "he looked me in the eye and said, 'No. I give you my word. I keep it.'" Of course he didn't. And he doesn't.
He promised police officers, firefighters and labor leaders he wouldn't overhaul Ãthe state's pension system if they went along with his 2004 budget proposals. They did ± and now the governor is betraying them by pushing to privatize California's pension plans and replace them with individual 401 (k)-style private accounts. This is a move right out of the Bush "Let's Privatize Social Security" playbook.
He promised voters that if they passed his balanced-budget initiative, he would "tear up the credit card and throw it away." They did à ± but his new budget calls for $6 billion in new borrowing. As California Treasurer Phil Angelides sums it up: "The new debts and deferrals would bring the state's total credit card balance to $31 billion, a 68 percent increase since the governor took office."
And then there's "The Truth About Arnold"
(from
Salon.com)
But Schwarzenegger's environmental record, which supporters and the national press spotlight as evidence of his moderation, is seriously flawed. The record shows that Schwarzenegger vetoed legislation requiring utilities to generate 20 percent of their energy from renewable sources. He vetoed a bill to make public schools energy-efficient, a bill to reduce energy pollution in the Port of Los Angeles and a bill to limit the use of gas-powered vehicles in wildlife refuges. He put political muscle behind November's victorious Proposition 64, which weakens the public's ability to sue corporate polluters.
Implementing his anti-labor, anti-consumer agendas, Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill penalizing employers for locking workplace safety exits. He vetoed a 50-cent raise in the minimum wage, a bill requiring employers to tell employees that their e-mail is being read and a bill protecting used-car buyers from fraud. According to a UC-Davis study, Schwarzenegger reduced workers' compensation insurance benefits by as much as 70 percent, while failing to significantly lower the price of insurance.
The people's governor has consistently vetoed bills opposed by the hospital and drug and insurance industries. He rejected a reduction in prescription drug prices, a law requiring pharmacies to disclose kickbacks from drug companies, a law protecting uninsured people from excessive hospital charges, a mandate to reduce hospital-acquired infections and an attempt to improve breast cancer screening practices.
Six months into his term, an emboldened Schwarzenegger created a commission to reorganize government bureaucracy. This was nothing new. Since 1968, there have been 29 such commissions. But Schwarzenegger's version, called the California Performance Review, pursues a right-wing agenda and would centralize power in the governor's office. Focusing on ways to abolish government regulation and reduce business taxes, the panel's recommendations included killing property tax relief and renter assistance to low-income seniors and disabled people, and cutting state subsidies to child care providers. The panel advised eliminating regulatory restrictions on oil refining, weakening pesticide laws, and abolishing oversight of mining and dredging in San Francisco Bay. In January, the governor adopted many of the panel's suggestions. If the Legislature does not rubber-stamp his reorganization plan, the governor threatens to put it, and a series of constitutional amendments that disempower the Legislature -- including a redistricting plan that could give California Republicans more sway at the polls -- to a popular vote this year.
At the core of the "reform" plan is the abolition of 88 citizen-run boards that meet in public and operate independently of the governor's will. Many of these boards -- whose members are paid $100 per meeting -- make important regulatory decisions affecting workers' compensation, energy, waste management, water, seismic safety, pest control, library construction, education, guide dogs for the blind and oversight of managed-care corporations. Some of the boards targeted for elimination are responsible for licensing and monitoring technical professions, such as doctors, pharmacists, mortgage brokers, registered nurses, accountants, general contractors, dentists, optometrists, physical therapists, security guards and veterinarians.
Sadly, I don't think we'll get anywhere until people lose their
partisan blinkers and their Hollywood worship, and see what the guy is
really doing. By then, we'll be in even worse shape, I fear...
Date: 2005-02-16, 6:29PM PST
You were the white guy in the big gas guzzler SUV parked across from BART in front of the etrade building where all the bike messengers hang out. You had your window down and were half leaned out it and seriously digging into your nose. I was concerned for your safety when you looked like you might poke through your nose, and indeed the fabric of the space time continuum. Then I started to laugh, a lot. I was on muni, so you couldn't hear me. I looked up and you saw me laughing. You straightened your tie and tried to look all stuffy and white and professional. You failed. Your finger was two inches up your nose, dude, you can't just play that shit off. And you were *actively* digging.
I tried to look you in the eye again when you gave me stink eye, but what can I say? I was laughing way too hard. I'm sorry, homes. Next time I'll try not to laugh. Next time, maybe you can try eating them, too? I gotta admit, that gets me off.
Stand Up For Our Soldiers Who Are Being Betrayed By The Mainstream Media
Tell The Media To Report The Good Things Our Soldiers Are DoingWhatever, Don. Dream on. (And no, I didn't click the link.)
Dear ...
Please read this warm, heart-rendering story about a group of soldiers who recently returned to the U.S. They watched the network news reports about the war while in Iraq and wondered how they would be treated upon their return home.
Ã
Click here to read the story ± Be prepared to shed some tears.
Day and night we hear from the mainstream media about how much violence has occurred in Iraq. Listening to the news we are left with the impression that our soldiers are killing and being killed and wounded for nothing.
The mainstream media go on for weeks reporting how some prisoners were mistreated in Guantanamo. CNN's Eason Jordan went so far as to report that U.S. soldiers had intentionally killed journalists in Iraq. This is the same network that refused to report on the brutalities of Saddam Hussein's regime because th
Click Here to send your email now!
For some good things our soldiers are doing, which aren't reported in the news, please click here.
Sincerely,
Don
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
P.S. Please click here if you would like to make a donation to help us continue this ministry.
Napster got served!
Moral and legal issues aside, peer-to-peer demonstrates that what consumers really want to do is download free music by the dumpsterful and do whatever they like with it à ³make it available on college networks, burn mix CDs and pass them out to their friends, and trade it on other networks for music they don à t already have. I see very little in the peer-to-peer experience that hints that what consumers desire is to have their listening limited to a computer and single portable music player. And, the last time I looked, the web wasn à t smoking with demands for a service that disables that music when you fail to pay a monthly ransom.
Goss said that Islamic extremists are Ãexploiting the conflict in Iraq and fighters there represent a ¬potential pool of contacts à ® to build transnational terror groups. He said the most-wanted terrorist in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, hopes to establish Iraq as a safe-haven to bring about a final victory over the West.
("Similarly, we have concerns that the cost of an attack on Iraq would further undermine the economic condition of the United States, that attempts to cause regime change in Iraq would result in high casualties for both U.S. military personnel and Iraqi civilians, and that a unilateral attack on Iraq by the United States would inflame tensions in other nations and could increase the threat of terrorism against the United States." Representatives Barbara Lee, Cynthia McKinney, and Sharrod Brown, 2002
Goss also said that the intelligence community has yet to get to the à ¬end of the trail à ® of the nuclear black market run by disgraced Pakistani scientist, A.Q. Khan. He wouldn t rule out the possibility that organizations, rather than states, could obtain on nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. He called à à ¬potential Khans à ® a worry.
("The former senior American intelligence
official was equally blunt. He
told me, 'Khan was willing to sell blueprints, centrifuges, and the
latest in weaponry. He was the worst nuclear-arms proliferator in the
world and he
Ã
s pardoned
Ã
³with not a squeak from the White
House.'" Seymour
Hersh in the New Yorker)
And for good measure:
"In addition to possible ongoing guerrilla action by Saddam Hussein's supporters, American occupation forces would likely be faced with competing armed factions among the Sunni Arab population, not to mention Kurdish and Shiite rebel groups seeking greater autonomy. This could lead the United States into a bloody counterinsurgency war. Without the support of other countries or the UN, a US invasion could leave American forces effectively alone attempting to enforce a peace amid the chaos of a post-Saddam Iraq." The Nation, 2003
andAbstinence education is great because it helps counteract the peer pressure that often leaves teenagers with broken hearts - and broken health.
For that reason, almost all sex-ed classes in America already encourage abstinence. But abstinence-only education isn't primarily about promoting abstinence - it's about blindly refusing to teach contraception.
To get federal funds, for example, abstinence-only programs are typically barred by law from discussing condoms or other forms of contraception - except to describe how they can fail. So kids in these programs go all through high school without learning anything but abstinence, even though more than 60 percent of American teenagers have sex before age 18.
Mr. Kristoff's column begins with a shocking misstatement. "Mr. Bush means well." There is about as much evidence for this as there is for the claim that abstinence-only education works.Other developed countries focus much more on contraception. The upshot is that while teenagers in the U.S. have about as much sexual activity as teenagers in Canada or Europe, Americans girls are four times as likely as German girls to become pregnant, almost five times as likely as French girls to have a baby, and more than seven times as likely as Dutch girls to have an abortion. Young Americans are five times as likely to have H.I.V. as young Germans, and teenagers' gonorrhea rate is 70 times higher in the U.S. than in the Netherlands or France.
Some studies have claimed that abstinence-only programs work, but researchers criticize the studies for being riddled with flaws. A National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy task force examined the issue and concluded: "There do not currently exist any abstinence-only programs with strong evidence that they either delay sex or reduce teen pregnancy."
President Bush was invited to address a major gathering of the American Indian Nation last weekend in Arizona. He spoke for almost an hour on his future plans for increasing every Native American's present standard of living. He referred to his career as Governor of Texas, how he had signed "YES" 1,237 times - for every Indian issue that came to his desk for approval.
Although the President was vague on the details of his plan, he seemed most enthusiastic about his future ideas for helping his "red brothers." At the conclusion of his speech, the Tribes presented the President with a plaque inscribed with his new Indian name - Walking Eagle. The proud President then departed in his motorcade, waving to the crowds.
A news reporter later inquired to the group of chiefs of how they came to select the new name given to the President.
They explained that Walking Eagle is the name given to a bird so full of sh*t that it can no longer fly.
(I'm sure there was a Clinton version of it a few years ago.)
Etymology
The intended meaning of the site's name is not known for certain. It is commonly interpreted as a word play on the phrase "goat sex", although no goats are involved anywhere on the site.
Waving black flags and banners, thousands of neo-Nazis marched through the heart of Dresden yesterday on the 60th anniversary of the city's destruction by British and American bombers.Some of the people quoted in the article:In the largest neo-Nazi demonstration in Germany's postwar history, about 5,000 people took part in a "funeral march" to mourn the civilians killed by the allied attack.
The protest upstaged the official commemoration of the anniversary, during which the British ambassador laid a wreath at a cemetery where victims were buried. Meanwhile, thousands of local citizens gathered in the old square for a candlelight vigil.
Large numbers of riot police were drafted into Dresden as several hundred anti-fascists hurled abuse at the far-right marchers and shouted: "Nazis out!"
The neo-Nazis marched to the music of Wagner and Bach, blaring from loudspeakers. As they crossed the Elbe towards the old city, they encountered several hundred anti-fascists. The organisers merely turned up the volume and played the Ride of the Valkyries.
"This is a terrible day for Dresden - I'm furious," said Ursula Hamann, 77, who lives in the city and survived the 1945 attack. "It's sad to see something like this happening in Germany again."
Edeltraud Krause said: "Look at them. You just have to look at their stupid faces. They do not represent us."
"My husband and I are NPD voters," said Anni Lutzner, who attended yesterday's NPD-organised rally in Dresden. "We believe that the German state favours foreigners and the Jews."
She added: "There's no point in banning us - we'll simply find a new name."
-----
Addressing the rally, the NPD's leader in the Saxon parliament, Holger Apfel, launched an attack on what he called the "gangster politics of the British and Americans".
He said: "They have left a trail of blood from the past to the present, via Dresden, Korea, Vietnam, Baghdad and - tomorrow possibly - Tehran. Terror and war have a name. And that name is the United States of America."
-----
"I have no sympathy with the neo-Nazis. We don't want to go through those terrible times again," said Gena Mothes, 85, who survived the raid. "The problem is that people don't learn anything from the past. There are always new wars going on.
While we were on the platform waiting for our train I figured I à d grab a few photos of the crowds. There has been talk of a fare increase and you never know when some current Muni photos might sell. Check out one of the images that I took, and tell me if you think this presents a security threat. And they weren à t even good photos!The details are fascinating and infuriating.ÃAs soon as I snapped the first shot, a SF Muni Fare Inspector admonished me to stop taking photos. I won t go into detail here as you can read my ROUGH DRAFT letters of protest to San Francisco Municipal Railway and San Francisco Police Department (both in PDF format). These letters are a good account of what happened. However, the short version is that The Fare Inspectors tried to prevent me from taking photos under threat of citation. When I refused to stop, they tried to cite me but couldn à t find any relevant code, regulation or law to cite me. Enlisting the aid of the SFPD and BART Police officers also yielded now results. No citation was issued.
Officer Primiano expressed extreme frustration with me as soon as I began speaking of my rights to photograph in public places. She wanted to debate the wisdom of my taking pictures and asserted that in the wake of the Sept 11th attacks on our country, I should be more interested in aiding officials in their efforts to increase security than my rights as a citizen or journalist. Despite my calm statement of my side of the issue, Officer Primiano waved her hands in the air, stated, "This guy is really pissing me off", and walked away, leaving Officer Ryan to talk to me. Luckily he exhibited a more rational, professional demeanor.Not for long!
However Officer Ryan was of the opinion that I should not be taking photographs. I explained to him that I didn't want to argue the wisdom of my taking photographs, or the efficacy of a ban on photography in the MUNI System should one exist. All I was concerned with was the legality of my actions. If I had in fact committed a crime by taking photographs, I should (and in fact wanted to) be cited under the relevant law so that I could then pursue the matter in the courts and assert my First Amendment rights. Officer Ryan told me in a very straightforward manner that he did not wish to allow me the opportunity to assert my constitutional rights in court. After walking over to the group of Fare Inspectors and BART Police Officers, Officer Ryan returned to speak to me. He expressed his frustration at the situation and me by saying:"Would it have been so difficult for you to just stop taking photographs when these guys told you to stop? If you weren't on your soapbox, I'd be out fighting real crime rather than standing around here dealing with you."Hey, they were the ones that chose to start this mess!
He expounded further, "Even if there is no law forbidding photography in the MUNI System, the Fare Inspectors have the right to refuse you service for any reason they choose, including taking photographs. Once they refuse you service they can swear out a citizens arrest for trespassing. I, or other officers, will book you and you'll spend the rest of your weekend in jail. It won't be for taking photographs, so your weekend would be ruined yet you'd never get a chance to argue the matter of taking photographs before a judge."Taken to its logical conclusion, we'll soon no longer be able to take pictures of the Golden Gate Bridge. Certainly the cable cars, being a major part of MUNI, are right out. Leave your pictures, take only memories!
The Republicans know the America they want, and they are not afraid to use any means to get there.
But there is something that this Administration and the Republican Party are very afraid of. It is that we may actually begin fighting for what we believe -- the fiscally responsible, socially progressive values for which Democrats have always stood and fought.
Because we are what we believe.
We Democrats believe in fiscal responsibility and we're the only ones who have delivered it.
The first time our nation balanced its budget, it was Andrew Jackson, father of the Democratic Party, who did it. The last time our nation balanced its budget, it was Bill Clinton who did it. Democratic governors do it every single year.
Not one Republican President has balanced the budget in almost 40 years. Borrow and spend. Borrow and spend. Borrow and spend. Americans cannot trust the Republicans with their money.
Americans want a strong and smart national security.
It was Democrats who pushed to create a Department of Homeland Security. It was Democrats who pushed to make our airlines safer. It is Democrats who are now working to make sure we close the remaining gaps in our security. It was Democrats who demanded reform of the intelligence community.
And it is Democrats who are pushing for a foreign policy that honestly deals with the threats of today, and the threats of tomorrow -- like securing the nuclear materials around the world.
Republicans had to be dragged kicking and screaming to our side on all of these issues. There is no reason for Democrats to be defensive on national defense.
We believe that a good job is the foundation of a strong family, a strong community, and a strong country. We're going to work to create good high-paying jobs here in America, and we're going to keep good high paying jobs here in America.
And there is no reason for us to apologize for being willing to stand up for our belief that Americans who get up and go to work everyday have the right to join a union.
We believe every American should have access to affordable health care. It is wrong that we remain the only industrialized nation in the world that does not assure health care for all of its citizens, particularly our children
We believe the path to a better future goes directly through our public schools.
We believe that every single American has a voice and that it should be heard in the halls of power every day. And most importantly, it ought to be heard by guaranteeing an open and fair vote on Election Day.
And finally, we believe that a lifetime of work earns you a retirement of dignity. We won't let that be put at risk by leaders who continually invent false crises to justify policies that don't work, in this case, borrowing from our children and shredding our country's social safety net in the process.
And yes, you bet I'm thrilled, and you bet I think this is a good
thing. It's not liberal, it's not conservative, it's just
right.
 |  |
A MESSAGE TO THE RIGHT‐TO‐LIFE MOVEMENT FROM NARAL PRO‐CHOICE AMERICA
PLEASE, HELP US PREVENT ABORTIONS
For years, your groups and ours have waged one of the country à s most divisive political wars over a woman à s right to choose. We believe passionately that women have the right to decide for themselves when to bring children into the world ± without government interference. You disagree à à ± passionately and sincerely.
We will never resolve our differences on this basic question. But we should agree on an equally fundamental point: America would be a better country if no woman ever faced the difficult choices posed by an unintended pregnancy. What better way to end the debate over abortion rights than by eliminating the reasons women seek abortion?
The time has come to join together in a new campaign to reduce the number of abortions.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid ± who disagrees with us on the issue of abortion à à ± has offered a commonsense bill called the Prevention First Act which would help reduce unintended pregnancies through better access to birth control. This landmark legislation represents a serious first step in addressing the problem, and I hope you à ll join pro‐choice Americans and me in offering your support.
Let às work together to pass this bill, and make it the first step in a dialogue about preventing unintended pregnancies.
I eagerly await your answer.
Nancy Keenan
President
NARAL Pro‐Choice America
THE PRESIDENT: You and I are baby boomers.Yeah, this woman is working three jobs to make ends meet, and he thinks it's amusing. Wow. It may be uniquely American, but he's uniquely heartless and clueless, isn't he?
MS. MORNIN: Yes, and I am concerned about -- that the system stays the same for me.
THE PRESIDENT: Right.
MS. MORNIN: But I do want to see change and reform for my children because I realize that we will be in trouble down the road.
THE PRESIDENT: It's an interesting point, and I hear this a lot -- will the system be the same for me? And the answer is, absolutely. One of the things we have to continue to clarify to people who have retired or near retirement -- you fall in the near retirement.
MS. MORNIN: Yes, unfortunately, yes. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't know. I'm not going to tell your age, but you're one year younger than me, and I'm just getting started. (Laughter.)
MS. MORNIN: Okay, okay.
THE PRESIDENT: I feel great, don't you?
MS. MORNIN: Yes, I do.
THE PRESIDENT: I remember when I turned 50, I used to think 50 was really old. Now I think it's young, and getting ready to turn 60 here in a couple of years, and I still feel young. I mean, we are living longer, and people are working longer, and the truth of the matter is, elderly baby boomers have got a lot to offer to our society, and we shouldn't think about giving up our responsibilities in society. (Applause.) Isn't that right?
MS. MORNIN: That's right.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but nevertheless, there's a certain comfort to know that the promises made will be kept by the government.
MS. MORNIN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And so thank you for asking that. You don't have to worry.
MS. MORNIN: That's good, because I work three jobs and I feel like I contribute.
THE PRESIDENT: You work three jobs?
MS. MORNIN: Three jobs, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that. (Applause.) Get any sleep? (Laughter.)
MS. MORNIN: Not much. Not much.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, hopefully, this will help you get you sleep to know that when we talk about Social Security, nothing changes.
MS. MORNIN: Okay, thank you.
This is the guy whose dad didn't know about supermarket scanners, of course.
It wasn't a band of angry students who destroyed about two dozen copies of "Bless Me, Ultima," a novel selected for a Norwood High School English class - it was a group of parents. Norwood School Superintendent Bob Conder confiscated the books and released them to parents to be burned or otherwise purged.
Conder said that he removed the books based on complaints by parents, complaints that were made "mainly" about the language. The book, which is used in high school level curricula all over the country, contains profanity; it also deals with cultural and religious issues."Filthy language," said Conder of the profanity. "I'm not going to repeat the language. Our job is to protect kids from things that aren't good for kids."
The teacher who selected the novel wrote a letter of apology to her students' parents. Conder said he didn't know whether the books were burned, or how they were destroyed after he released them to parents.
The book was ordered for the class from an academic catalog, and the title appears frequently on AP and International Baccalaureate lists which recommend titles for classrooms. Millie Davis, the Division Director of Communication and Affiliate Services for the National Council of Teachers of English, said that school districts normally have both a policy for book selection and a policy for book objection. The burning, tearing or destruction of books is not as common.
"I'm flabbergasted that something like this would be happening in this day and age," said Davis.
Yeah, me too. Actually, this
story also makes me want to utter filthy language. Is this book-burning
thing happening more and more, or is it just getting more attention
when it happens? I can't figure it out.
Fun concert at Bimbo's last night. First, I ran into a neighbor and
her
date, who, it turns out, are Long-Time Fans. They gave me a bunch of
album recommendations and regaled us with tales of past concerts. When
I mentioned that my first Richard Thompson album was The Old Kit
Bag,
I was informed that it was O.K., but that others were far better.
(Considering it's one of my favorite albums of the last couple years,
I
guess I'd better start doing my homework!)But I found it heartening that Falwell's coreligionists jumped all over him for it:Falwell's comment came on "CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer" in a debate with Baptist minister Jesse Jackson, who called the Iraq war "a misadventure" that isolated the United States politically and cost the country lives, money and "our character."
Falwell, pastor of Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchnurg, Va., responded: "I'd rather be killing them over there than fighting them over here, Jesse. And I think you would. ..."
"Let's stop the killing and choose peace," Jackson responded. "Let's choose negotiation over confrontation."
"Well, I'm for that too," Falwell added. "But you've got to kill the terrorists before the killing stops. And I'm for the president to chase them all over the world. If it takes 10 years, blow them all away in the name of the Lord."
andDavid Currie, executive director of Texas Baptists Committed, said he was "dumbfounded" by Falwell's comments.
"I could not believe what I was hearing from a Christian minister," said Currie, who holds a doctorate in Christian ethics from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Currie agreed with Gushee that the United States should hunt down terrorists, killing them if necessary to prevent further acts of terrorism.
"But Jerry Falwell is absolutely wrong in his theology and his politics to claim such actions should be done 'in the name of Lord,' that is, Jesus Christ," he said. "Jerry Falwell's remarks defame Christianity, my faith and the faith of most Americans. ...
"The message of Christianity is not war, hatred or murder. It is love, unconditional love. That is the nature of God. The war on terror is not a war between Christians and Muslims. It is a war between those who want peace in the world and those who want to destroy peace. To imply God has a side, other than peace, is poor theology.
"It defames Christianity to imply God and the United States of America have some kind of special relationship. It defames the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross for every person, regardless of race, nationality, sex or religion. It defames Christianity to use the name of God as a motivation to kill others. It defames Christianity to imply Christians--who are only saved because they admit their sinfulness and need of a savior--are morally superior to persons of other faiths."
I also found it interesting that this story appeared in a Baptist newspaper and website... in Texas.Glen Stassen, professor of Christian ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif., went further. Stassen, co-author with Gushee of "Kingdom Ethics," advocated "just peacemaking" as an alternative to war.
"Falwell's strategy was adopted by Russia against the Muslim terrorists in Chechnya, and it only increases the anger and the recruits to terrorism and the killing, as in North Ossetia," he said, referring to the recent massacre at a Russian school.
"Turkey instead used just peacemaking practices with its Muslim terrorists among the Kurds, and the Kurdish terrorism is completely ended," Stassen said. "They are not killing 'here' or 'there.'"
At this morning's 109th Congressional Prayer Service, Tom DeLay stepped up to the podium and decided to read this timely little piece of the Bible:
A reading of the Gospel, in Matthew 7:21 through 27.And this was apropos of... what, exactly?
Not every one who says to me, "Lord, Lord," will enter the kingdom of heaven; but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
Many will say to me on that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?"
Then I will declare to them solemnly, "I never knew you: depart from me, you evil doers."
Everyone who listens to these words of mine, and acts on them, will be like a wise man, who built his house on a rock:
The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew, and buffeted the house, but it did not collapse; it has been set solidly on rock.
And everyone who listens to these words of mine, but does not act on them, will be like a fool who built his house on sand:
The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew, and buffeted the house, and it collapsed and was completely ruined.
The updated law makes saving seeds for next year's harvest, practiced by 97% of Iraqi farmers in 2002, and is the standard farming practice for thousands of years across human civilizations, to be now illegal.. Instead, farmers will have to obtain a yearly license for genetically modified (GM) seeds from American corporations. These GM seeds have typically been modified from seeds developed over thousands of generations by indigenous farmers like the Iraqis, and shared freely like agricultural 'open source.'"And what's up with this missing $9 billion?
Iraq law Requires Seed Licenses November 13, 2004
"According to Order 81, paragraph 66 - [B], issued by L. Paul Bremer [CFR], the people in Iraq are now prohibited from saving seeds and may only plant seeds for their food from licensed, authorized U.S. distributors.
The paragraph states, "Farmers shall be prohibited from re-using seeds of protected varieties or any variety mentioned in items 1 and 2 of paragraph [C] of Article 14 of this chapter."
Written in massively intricate legalese, Order 81 directs the reader at Article 14, paragraph 2 [C] to paragraph [B] of Article 4, which states any variety that is different from any other known variety may be registered in any country and become a protected variety of seed - thus defaulting it into the "protected class" of seeds and prohibiting the Iraqis from reusing them the following season. Every year, the Iraqis must destroy any seed they have, and repurchase seeds from an authorized supplier, or face fines, penalties and/or jail time."
Education Secretary takes stand for your family; bombarded by homosexual activistsWhich reminds me. You can contact the Department of Education and tell them what you really think of Spellings' "bold stand" here or:
Dear xxxxx,
Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, in her first day on the job, told Public Broadcasting System officials that a cartoon promoting the homosexual lifestyle should not be broadcast on their tax-supported stations.
She said that many parents would not want their children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle.
A spokesman for PBS said that the government-funded network had agreed not to air the cartoon. "Postcards From Buster" shows the title character, an animated bunny, on a trip to Vermont, a state that recognizes homosexual civil unions. The episode included two lesbian couples.
Spellings told PBS (1) that her department's seal or any statement linking the department to the show be removed, (2) that PBS notify its member stations the nature of the show, and (3) that a refund "in the interest of avoiding embroiling the Ready-to-Learn program in a controversy that will only hurt it."
PBS, unlike other non-commercial stations, receives hundreds of millions of tax dollars. Other non-commercial stations depend on their listeners for financial support. PBS's viewing audience is basically affluent and well educated, but give only a small amount to support PBS.
Secretary Spellings has been ridiculed in the media and bombarded by the homosexual community because of her stand. The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest homosexual activist organization, blasted Spellings for criticizing the episode.
HRC's Winnie Stachelberg said, "The secretary's first act in office denies children an education about the diversity of American families. Teaching children about respect for differences promotes tolerance of their fellow human beings."
The homosexual community has long used PBS and public schools to promote their agenda.
Please send a thank you to Secretary Spellings for her bold stand. Homosexuals are using their public attack on Secretary Spellings to keep her from taking similar actions in the future and to scare others from following her lead. We must not let that happen.
CLICK HERE TO SEND YOUR THANK YOU LETTER NOW!
Thanks for caring enough to stand up for your children and grandchildren.
Sincerely,
Don
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
Public Broadcasting ServiceAnd lastly, you should give mad props to KQED for airing the show here:
1320 Braddock Place
Alexandria, VA 22314
Bloodninja: Ok baby, we got to hurry, I don't know how long I can keep it ready for you.You get the idea...
j_gurli13: thats ok. ok i'm a japanese schoolgirl, what r u.
Bloodninja: A Rhinocerus. Well, hung like one, thats for sure.
j_gurli13: haha, ok lets go.
j_gurli13: i put my hand through ur hair, and kiss u on the neck.
Bloodninja: I stomp the ground, and snort, to alert you that you are in my breeding territory.
j_gurli13: haha, ok, u know that turns me on.
j_gurli13: i start unbuttoning ur shirt.
Bloodninja: Rhinoceruses don't wear shirts.
j_gurli13: No, ur not really a Rhinocerus silly, it's just part of the game.
Bloodninja: Rhinoceruses don't play games. They fucking charge your ass.
I ask Al-Bander what he thinks of those who pronounced Iraqis as incapable of ruling themselves. "I think it is racism," he answers. "What amazes me, it is coming from liberals."
That's what Bush-hating has come to in America 2005...
Oh! We're so busted! Does anyone remember when
Michael Moore said, "We shouldn't invade war because those little
brown
people couldn't possibly have invented big bad weapons of mass
destruction?"
How about when Howard Dean said, "We're not going to risk our
soldiers' lives for a bunch of sand n****s?"
Or when Moveon.org sent out an email saying "Arabs can't
handle democracy! It's been genetically proven!"
Oh, I am one ashamed liberal...
