Taming the Task of Checking for Terrorists' Names
By SARAH MILSTEIN
[...] Take, for instance, the name "Abd al-Rahman," which can be a given name or a surname, depending on its culture of origin. When transliterated from the Arabic into Latin characters, the name has three parts, the first two of which are prefixes for Rahman, meaning "slave of" or "servant of."
But when an English speaker hears the name, it tends to sound like "Abdurrahman." A person writing it down based simply on how it sounds could easily spell it as one word and in a way that shares few characters with the transliterated version. [...]
In all the condemnations of the INS, FBI, CIA and other agencies (including my own), this is a factor that has actually been somewhat overlooked. I know I hadn't considered it at all until I read this article yesterday - and yet, in retrospect, I feel like I should.
Transliterating names from a non-English alphabet into our own letters is hardly an exact science. I remember how, during the years when Kaddaffi was in the news on a regular basis, I found it confusing to see his name written in such a wide variety of ways. Sometimes the first sound was written as a K, Kh, Q, Qu, G, or Gh, and whether the "d" sound in the middle and the "f" sound at the end were represented by single letters, double letters or one of each led to an abundence of spellings -- none of which could be considered "official" or "correct". The article also notes that there are over 200 ways that "Mohammad" can be spelled in English.
Now, none of this excuses the vast majority of the lapses that we've seen from our security and law enforcement agencies. By and large, they have failed us in far too many ways. This issue, however, does help explain at least where some problems may originate. Much of our intel is dependent on watch lists, and if the names are spelled one way on the watch list and a different way the passports or visas - especially if the difference is as great as the example quoted above ("Abd al-Rahman" vs "Abdurrahman") - it may be somewhat more understandable when someone slips through the cracks.
Steven Wright. "Last year I went fishing with Salvador Dali. He was using a dotted line. He caught every other fish." [Quotes of the Day]
Harry Potter author donates $100,000 in fan's memory. NEW YORK--It is a story every bit as moving and magical as her Harry Potter books. J.K. Rowling, a world-famous children's author, has donated $100,000 to the memory of a young American girl whose battle against terminal cancer left, in the writer's words, "footprints on my heart." [Chicago Sun-Times]
For all the cold, bitter cynic I like to been seen as, I have to admit that, down inside, I have one of those damnable soft hearts that gets all "Awwwwww" about happy or touching stories. I hate it, but it's there, and sometimes I just have to induldge in it.
After hearing from most of my Witchy friends abot how much they loved the Harry Potter stories, I decided to test the waters by watching the first movie. It's become one of those (like Evolution) that I now watch on a fairly regular basis. Yes, its sentimental and sweet and all that, but it's also a good bit of fun, so I got sucked into it. Then, today, I read the story above about author JK Rowling's donation to a fund in memory of an American fan she'd had contact wth before the girl died. It turns out that not only did she donate what is by any measure a substantial sum, but she also had taken time to talk to the girl before her death, and when it became apparent that the child wouldn't live to see the fourth book published, called the girl and read her excerpts from the book over the phone.
Maybe its just that in a world whice seems to offer so many good reasons for being bitter and cynical, it's nice to be reminded that kindness still has a place.
Suits against cell phone users also target employers
December 29, 2002
By Laura Parker
Gannett News Service
[...] On March 8, 2000, during a nighttime call, [Jane Wagner] hit and killed a 15-year-old girl, Naeun Yoon, on a busy highway in Fairfax County, Va., just outside Washington.
Now Yoon's parents have filed a civil suit against Wagner. But in seeking $30 million in damages, Yoon's father, Young Ki Yoon, also is suing Wagner's former employer, the law firm Cooley Godward, based in San Francisco.
At the heart of the claim against the law firm are the cell phone calls Wagner made when she was working. The suit alleges that the firm is partly liable for the accident because Wagner's job involved doing business by cell phone. Such calls, the suit says, were done ''with the expectation and acquiescence of Cooley Godward and served as a direct benefit to ... the law firm.'' [...]
Several reports have shown that talking on a cell phone while driving is every bit as dangerous as driving while drunk. The amount of attention being paid to the road is considerably less than what is typically required for safe driving, and its easy to get so wrapped up in the conversation that everything else - including objects, people, other cars, turns, traffic signs or lights, and the rest - becomes secondary. Some reports even suggest that this problem isn't limited just to cell phone users, but also to people who are just engaged in conversation with their passengers or are using the "hands-free" devices that are supposed to help you be less distracted by the phone. (While I can see how they are VERY handy, and help ensure that you can have both hands available for running and steering the car, I fail to see how making it "hands free" would automatically make it safer -- I would think that only a "brain free" setup would do that).
Given the above, I have little difficulty with the family of the victim suing Ms. Wagner for killing thier daughter. There's been enough publicity over the last several months about the hazards of driving while talking on a cell phone, and in several localities, laws are being passed to make talking on the phone while driving illegal, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect someone to know that. I do, however, have some problems with them suing the law firm Ms. Wagner works for.
While I'm no expert on the law, were I on a jury considering this matter, there are a few things I'd want to know:
In my opinion, if the comany didn't require her to have a phone, or if they were willing to allow the use of pagers and give their employees a window of 15-20 minutes in which to respond to any given call, or if they wanted her to have a cell phone, but were willing to allow employees to find a place to pull over in order to handle client calls, then the company should not be held liable for the poor choices made by their employee. On the other hand, however, if they did require that she use a phone, be available immediately, and expected her to talk while on the road, the plaintiffs might have a somewhat better case.
Along with our nations growing addiction to lawsuits over any matter, we also seem to be growing addicted to the idea that if something happens to us, we're entitled to a huge windfall - so large, in many cases, that it is unlike those seen even by all but the luckiest of lottery winners. This, of course, stems from the idea that we deserve to be compensated for any suffering we must endure, especially if we can find someone else to blame for it. Yet if we look at this country, let alone the world, we can see examples on an hourly basis of people who have suffered greatly but have no hopes for compensation of any kind. Not all of these people are in such dire straights because of there own actions. Some suffer due to the accident of birth - who they were born to and where they live. Others suffer from injuries sustained in an accident. Still more suffer from diseases and disorders that rob their lives of what joy is available to them. Yet these people have no one to sue - no one to give them that same windfalls that the middle to upper classes enjoy.
As time goes forward, it becomes apparent that, at some point - and hopefully sooner rather than later -- there will need to be built into the system a better way of screening out bogus, frivolous and harassing lawsuits, and penalize those who repeatedly make filings for such messages. Any such code, however, should be designed in such a way that it does not deter people who have legitimate grievences, but helps make it harder for people to use lawsuits as a means of extortion, rather than a means of justice.
John O'Ferrell has written a pointed, but hilarious piece for the Guardian Unlimited, suggesting that perhaps, rather than sending British troops into a risky war designed to help W get re-elected, perhaps the troops could be deployed to states in which the race is close and help campiagn for Bush instead. Joe Bob says "Check it out"!
Girl to sue over detention. Girl to sue over detention "The family, who want compensation, will argue that the detentions were unlawful because they took place in Freya's free time. " If you can't give kids detention, how else are they going to be punished for breaking school rules? [MetaFilter]
I suppose there's some comfort to be found in the fact that this is a story taking place in Britian, not America - meaning that it's not just us who come up with outrageous reasons to go to court and have parents who seem to think that their children shouldn't have to play by the rules.
Now, it's been a while since I was last in school, but if I recall correctly, the point of detention was to take up your free time - as punishment for having broken the school's rules. There are many things that occur in schools that require students to stay after class. Most extra-cirricular activities, such as sports, cheerleading, drama productions, marching band and so on, hold their meetings and practices outside of normal school hours, during a student's free time. While some might argue that there's a difference, because students can choose whether or not to participate in such activities, it can also be argued that a student can choose whether or not to participate in detention. If you don't want to have to stay after school for breaking the rules, then you can choose not to break them.
I find this story to be a troubling part of a larger trend, however. This last year, I recall stories about parents suing or threatening to sue if their child were subjected to some of the normal consequences of their actions. In one case, the parents threatened to sue when a teacher noted that their child was going to fail a class, even though there had been plenty of warning given that the student's grades were unacceptable and the teacher took time to try and help the student improve them. In one town in Kansas, several students were given failing grades for a class because the teacher had evidence that they'd plagerized assigned reports. Many parent were upset about this, and in the ensuing controversy, the school board chose to allow the students to pass the class and the teacher ended up quitting.
When parents threaten to litigate because their child has been penalized for misbehaviour - whether it is through a detenition or lowered grades - the parents are only teaching their children that they don't have to accept responsiblity for their actions. The children get the message that they can do whatever they want, and as long as they have a lawyer, they won't have to suffer any consequences. This does not bode well for the future of the country, as it indicates that frivilous lawsuits and "excuse" defenses will only increase as these next generations come into their own and become the leaders of the nation.
In most of the cases of parental interference that have occured in the US, the school boards have caved in to their demands before the suit could go to trial. While I realize that defending a lawsuit costs a great deal of money, it seems to me that it would be much better if the cases could go to trial. Perhaps it is naive, but I suspect that a judge or jury would be much less likey to buy into the parents apparently belief that their child is entitled to live consequence-free, and perhaps it would cut down on the number of parents willing to try bullying their schools.
Over at TalkLeft, I found a link to an interesting "Political Map" Quiz that's supposed to tell you where you fit in to the political landscape. Mine came up "Centrist", which is interesting, because they describe Centrists as:
You would feel most at home in Centerville, which means that you are more or less pleased the status quo-you think the US government has just about the right amount of control over your economic and personal decisions. Your neighbors include democratic and republican party leaders and others who call themselves "moderates" and "centrists."
Now, if I was really more or less pleased with the status quo, why do I have nearly three months worth of almost daily postings, mostly bitching about what the government did most recently to piss me off? Ah well... in some ways, I suppose it fits -- I've always joked that I end up being a moderate because I spend so much time running from one end of the spectrum to the other that you pretty much have to take the average.
If you decide you want to take the test, you can compare your score to mine by making a note of my e-mail address: kriselda@differentstrings.info. If you'd like, go ahead and leave your e-mail in the comments so I can compare your score to mine.
I have a tendency to get hooked on movies sometimes, and I can end up watching the same one - whether it really deserves it or not - on an almost daily basis if I'm in the mood. Lately, the mood I've been in has called for a daily dose of "Evolution", a science-fiction comedy by Ivan Reitman, in the spirit of his classic, "Ghostbusters".
The story is fairly simple - a metor crashes in the Arizona desert, and is discovered to contain organic material from another world. The evolutionary rate for this material, however, is incredibly fast - the aliens can achieve in a few hours what it took our world 2 billion years to produce. Left to their own devices, they'll be able to take over the world within in a matter of weeks. It's up to our rag-tag band of heros - a down-on-his-luck biologist; his best friend, a geologist who "thinks he's an athlete"; a nice but dim-witted "townie" who works at the local country club, but dreams of being a firefighter; a doctor from the CDC; and 2 brothers who have maybe one brain cell between them, but happen to know a key bit of information - to stop the aliens while they still can.
The movie itself isn't going to be a comedy classic, but it is a nice, funny bit of fluff that won't rot your brain too much and can fill a couple hours when need be. My fondness for the movie, however, comes, at least in some small part, from the two brothers - "the Donalds" - because of the way they help defy a common Hollywood stereotype.
As noted in some of my earlier bits, I'm a fat woman, and one thing that has had a devastating impact on me has been the way the media - both in entertainment and the news - treat the obese. In entertainment, fat people are typically the butts of the jokes, generally shown stuffing their face with food on a near-consistant basis, obsessed with talking and thinking about food, easily distracted by food, and so on.
On an episode of ER, a man who'd recently had his stomach stapled to help him lose weight came to the hospital because of abdominal pain. Now, for most people, after a stomach stapling, it's best to liquify and drink food, rather than eating it, as it's easier to digest that way. This character had, apparently, liquified and drunk an "entire Christmas meal" (as opposed to the normal 2 or 3 tablespoons of food or drink a person who has had gastro-intestinal surgery is able to eat for a meal). Another scene had the doctors trying to figure out how to pull the guy out of the wheelchair he'd gotten stuck in, but the greatest part of the man's humiliation was yet to come. One of the nurses discoveres that 5 dinner trays are missing, and, following a trail of food crumbs, they find the man passed out in a closet, having eaten the 5 dinners and become so engorged that he passed out and puked. He had to be taken for emergency surgery, and Dr. Benton made a point of identifying each bit of food as he pulled it from the man's system.
Monk featured an episode centered around an 800-lb man who was confined to bed because of his weight. Anytime another character was in a position to see any of his abdominal flesh exposed, their reaction was universally one of disgust to the point of almost needing to throw up. The character was shown constantly being served food - nine corn dogs, or a mixing bowl sized "serving" of spaghetti.
Third Watch contributed an episode with a woman who, like the character from Monk, was so fat she was confined to her bed, and in order to get her to the hospital, a wall from her appointment had to be removed. As the paramedics came in through the house, a view was given into the family kitchen which was filled (and I DO mean FILLED) with cakes, cupcakes, candies, snack food and other such items. I will give Third Watch credit for at least having one of the characters acknowledge that the woman deserved to be treated with reasonable dignity. It's too bad the show itself could have done that for the character.
The news media is, in many ways, is even worse. In the cases where a fat person does get trapped in their home, if a wall of their home has to be removed to get them out, the newspapers in the area will cover it, and frequently, it'll make the national "odd" news wires. I remember several years back when I had a very bizarre accident and inded up running over my own leg with my car (no serious damage, though, just a big bruise on the back of my calf with the clear impression of the tire tread in it), I was absolutely terrified that, because I am a very large woman, and because the accident itself was so weird, it was somehow going to end up in the news. I've even told my husband that if - Gods forbid - we ever do have trouble getting me out of the house, that I'd rather die in the house than become the subject of a news report on another fat freak. And when doing stories on obesity, TV news stories are ALWAYS illustrated with pictures of fat people's torsos. No faces - just people walking in crowds, shown only form the base of their neck to their knees.
So, given the general treatment that fat people get in movies, when I first saw the characters of "the Donalds" in one of the opening scenes, I resigned myself to being innundated with yet another rounds of these kinds of sterotypes and to see the guys always with food in hand and so on. I was, however, pleasantly surprised. No mention is made at all about the guys' size in the film and the characters are rarely, if ever, shown with food. They don't talk about food, there's no scenes of them being distracted by someone talking about food or showing pictures of food. Nothing like that at all. And while some may argue that having the guys be so dumb is an insult to fat people (and therefore makes the movie unacceptable), it must be noted that they aren't the only really dumb characters in the film. Two other characters - one of our main trio of heros, and a minor female character - are both a dumb as a bag of hammers, if not dumber, and they are both what would be considered conventionally attractive.
What we end up with are two characters, who happen to be fat, but who are not defined as being "fat people". There are no fat jokes, and, in the long run, they end up helping to save the day. They are simply treated the same way any other character in the movie is, and while that may not sound like reason for celebration, it is extremely rare. The characters could easily have been played by thin people, and not a single thing about them would have to be changed.
So, while part of me feels sad that this is actually something I find reason to be happy about, most of me is just happy that the film was made the way it was, and that for once, the fat people were just part of the local colour for the setting of the movie, and not the punchline to every other joke.
The Latest From Tulia. Some tentative, very preliminary steps are being taken to address one of the great miscarriages of justice in the country. By Bob Herbert. [New York Times: Opinion]
A little over 3 years ago, 46 residents of Tulia, Tx, were arrested and charged with selling cocaine. Of the 46 arrested, 40 were black, and the other 6 had various ties to the black community. All were poor, and at the time of their arrests, no money, drugs, weapons or other evidence was found to support the allegations, and the prosecution's case rested on the testimony of Tom Coleman, an officer whose reliability as a witness is open to question.
The cases went to trial, and a series of all-white juries found most of those tried guilty - with sentences ranging from 14 years to over 430. As it became clear that most cases would end with convictions and stiff prison terms, several of those arrested entered into plea-bargains. A few were able to prove that they were at work or out of town at the time that Tom Coleman claims that they were selling drugs to him (as part of an undercover sting operation he was running), but even as more information comes to light indicating that the cases are likely to be bogus, there are still 14 people in jail on charges stemming from the early morning raid.
Recently, an appelate court has returned some of the cases back to the original court for further investigation, and the judge that presided over the original trials has recused himself. A new judge, who has no ties to the law-enforcement system in Tulia, has been appointed to take over the cases.
Links for additional information:
[LA Times] Frist earned his medical degree from Harvard. As a student, he adopted stray cats from Boston-area shelters -- and then dissected them. He later confessed that it had been "a heinous and dishonest thing to do."
Maybe this is just the old "softy", animal-lover part of me, but I find this absolutely astounding. The idea that a person who is old enough and smart enough to get into Harvard would think that it is ok to go to animal shelters - where people take stray animals expecting them to be cared for and adopted out to new and loving homes - and adopt cats so that you can kill and dissect them is something that seems to be unthinkable to me.
While I'm certainly not a supporter of using animals for medical research, to an extent I can understand why that is allowable, since in most cases the scientists are at least attempting to find answers for medical mysteries, better ways to treat or cure diseases or otherwise resolve problems that people face with their health. In my opinion, if there are any other ways to make these determinations - such as through the use of computer modeling - then those methods should be used, but if those are not possible, I can accept that animals will be used.
With Bill Frist, however, it appears to be a very different situation. He wasn't trying to solve any problems, cure any diseases or any else that might be considered useful to humanity in general. He was doing it for himself - for his own education and advancement. He says that he "later" realized that it was heinous and dishonest - but what worries me is that it took him any time at all to realize that. Someone who is in training to be a physician should have the ethical sense to realize that killing cats just to practice on is wrong. They should have the ethical sense to not even think of it in the first place.
Much has been made of Frist's potential conflict of interest since his family founded HCA, the largest for-profit chain of hospitals, and he and his wife earn a great deal of their wealth from investments in the company. The fact that he did not vote prior to 1989 has also been raised as an issue, and it does seem odd that someone who now feels he is qualified to run the Senate, is also someone who, just over a decade ago, didn't even bother to vote.
Now, I'll grant that the fact that someone's a Republican and in Congress is generally sufficient reason for me to be a bit skeptical about them, so Bill Frist already has a ways to go to convince me that he's trustworthy. None of this is going to help him much. It says that the governing of this country wasn't important to him until he decided to become part of it, that he will willingly put himself in a place where his decisions may have a direct impact on his own pocketbook (especially since he plans to make health care a significant issue), and he was willing to lie to an animal shelter so that he could get cats to kill. There's a certain selfishness and arrogance that runs through all of these issues, and it does not seem to bode well for the Senate or the country in general.
Plain clothes patrols after complaints of sex on nudist beach. Plain clothes police are patrolling a New Zealand nudist beach after residents complained people were having sex in public. [Ananova: Quirkies]
... if they're wearing "plain clothes", won't they still stand out just a bit?
'Miracle' escape from plane crash. Four people are said to have survived a "Christmas miracle" after a small airliner crashed into a car near Aberdeen Airport. [BBC News | Front Page | UK Edition]
A report in Wired Magazine notes that the Total Information Awareness website has begun shrinking lately. Biographies of Admiral Poindexter and others involved in the project have been removed, as has the Information Awareness Office's "all-seeing eye" logo.
Also changed is the graphic overview of how the project is intended to work. Both graphics are a bit on the indecipherable side, but the new one seems to have been designed to stress the idea of legal protections in regards to who can access the system's data.
This is the original graphic:
This is the new graphic:
Of course, what's important is what hasn't changed. They're tried to make the site look less intimidating, and they're tried to offer reassurance (through their graphics, at least) that access will be restricted by law. What they haven't tried to do is make any kind of a fundamental change to the program itself, to create greater respect for the citizenry's right to privacy. The basic plan is still the same - gather as much public and private information as possible on everyone, shuttle it through various "algorhythms" and see who deserves to be considered a possible suspect. It may look less intimidating, but it's still capable of significant Constitutional mayhem.
[Side note: In an interesting parallel, TIA looks to be a kind of "pre-emptive" law enforcement - where people can be investigated without having actually committed anything resembling a crime - to go along with Bush's ideal of a "pre-emptive" war - where we can attack a country without the country having actually having done something wrong. Suspicion of potential future wrongdoing becomes reason enough to take action.]
The latest issue of Virtual Occoquan is up and ready for reading. Featured this week is a gallery of photos and other images representing the various authors VO showcases. Now if I could just figure out what the $299.95 price tag on mine means... *g*
Thanks again to Mark for his great work on putting together a tasty little sampler of the best of the Salon Blogs!
Leader of 'The Clash' Is Dead at 50. Punk legend Joe Strummer of ``The Clash'' has died, his record company said Monday. By The Associated Press. [Headlines From The NY Times]
3 whistleblowers named Time magazine's Persons of the Year
December 22, 2002
BY ERIN McCLAM ASSOCIATED PRESS
NEW YORK -- The FBI agent who wrote a scathing memo on FBI intelligence failures and women who blew the whistle on corruption at corporate giants Enron and WorldCom were named Sunday as Time magazine's Persons of the Year.
The magazine's editors chose Coleen Rowley, Cynthia Cooper and Sherron Watkins "for believing really believing that the truth is one thing that must not be moved off the books, and for stepping in to make sure that it wasn't."
Time managing editor Jim Kelly said the women embody a critical struggle facing the country how to restore trust in disgraced institutions, from major corporations to the Catholic Church.
In a choice that will likely be debated, Time Magazine has chosen to recognize three women who took significant risks in order to do what they believed to be right. Already, a poll at Time shows that roughly 85% of the people who responded disagree with Time's choices.
Prior to announcing 2001's choice (Mayor Rudy Giuliani), there was quite a bit of debate over who might be the recipient, as Osama bin Laden was one possiblity. During that debate, it was pointed out that the "Person of the Year" designation was not intended to be an indication of who was the best person of the year, but rather it is awarded to the person (or people) who have had the largest impact - positive or negative - during the last year. (Due to the possible confusion that "Person of the Year" can create, there have been suggestions that Time rename the designation as "Newsmaker of the Year").
Following that logic, Time would have been quite justified in naming Osama bin Laden as "Person of the Year", as he truly did have the biggest impact on the news last year. This year, however, there wasn't anyone who stood out as much - no one person or group of people who had clearly made the biggest change. Time's choice, however, seems to be appropriate, especially in regards to Sherron Watkins, whose efforts to expose the fraud at Enron led to Enron's collapse. When Enron collapsed, it triggered a hard look at other corporations, and swiftly several others reported "cooked" books and fraudulant earnings statements, leading to several high-profile arrests and the collapse of several other companies. In addition to the impact this had on the stock market, it also had another serious impact on the economy - as many people suddenly found themselves out of work. On top of that, because many companies encouraged employees to invest in their own stock or stock options, as the companies collapsed, so did the value of their stock, draining the retirement funds many now-unemployed workers had worked to save.
This is a situation that will likely have a long-term effect on business in America -- at least, it should. Accounting practices will need to be reviewed, and there needs to be a system set up to help prevent the kinds of conflicts-of-interest that existed between several of these companies and their auditors. Retirement plan programs need to be reviewed and revamped to help ensure that an employee's account won't become worthless if the company they work for collapses.
Colleen Rowley's memo regarding the FBI's lapses in handling investigations prior to September 11, 2001, has also had a significant impact on this past year. By coming forward and bringing these allegations into the open, she paved the way for other agents to make their concerns known as well. These reports, and the questions they've raised, helped create enough pressure on the President for him to finally call for a special investigation into the FBI and CIA's actions prior to the attacks to try and determine why - and how - so many warning signs were missed. This is something that may have a significant impact on what steps the government ultimately takes in order to prevent such disasters from happening again.
As it stands right now, the government's main focus is on increasing the power given to the Justice department and law enforcement in general, and cutting back on the civil liberties that are supposedly guaranteed to American citizens. If the investagatory commission is allowed to do its job properly, however, the testimony of Ms. Rowley and her fellow agents who are willing to step forward, may help show that some of these changes are unnecessary, and that the problem is not that our society is too "free" nor that our Justice department and law enforcement agencies are too weak, but rather that they simply need to do their job better and make better use of what information they have available.
While it's a sad commentary on the state of our law enforcement agencies and large corporations that such whistleblowers are necessary, its good to see the impact that whistleblowers can have - not just on their company or agency, but on our nation as a whole - recognized an described as heroic and honourable.
Today is the Winter Solstice - the shortest day of the year. In ancient times, the solstice marked the beginning of Yule, which was the time when light overcame the darkness and the world began to warm again, reminding people that spring - and the new life that comes with it - would soon return.
As noted in Our Troth:
Of all the high feasts of our forebears, Yule is by far the highest, the holiest, and the most fraught with might. During the thirteen nights of Yule, all the worlds meet in the Middle-Garth: the god/esses and the dead walk freely, trolls and alfs come into the homes of humans, and those folk who are closest to the Otherworld may leave their human selves altogether to become the riders of the Wild Hunt or oskorei (Ásgarð-Ride), werewolves, or the embodiments of various of the wights that wander the earth at Yule-tide. But Yule is also the time of the greatest feasting and joy, because it is at Yule that the whole clan, living and dead, gathers as one, sure in the knowledge that even as the Sun rises every year from her greatest darkness, so there will ever be rebirth for us as well. It is not by chance that Yule has preserved the most Heathen customs of any feast: the promise of the Yule log and the ever-green tree also stood as the promise that our folk-ways should live through the long dark winter and rise bright again.
[The full article can be found at http://www.thetroth.org/resources/ourtroth/index.html]
Of course, this time of year is not sacred to Norse Pagans alone. It is sacred to people of many faiths, and even among the secular, it is a time of celebration and general good will. My wish this year at this holy time is that each of you find the greatest blessings you seek, regardless of what path it is you walk. May the returning light of the coming spring increase the warmth, joy and hope in your life.
In Frith (a fruitful peace),
Kriselda
Since I'd written about the Two Towers protest earlier today, I just had to share this comic from PVPonline.com.
BTW: If you enjoy online gaming or even just get a kick out of poking fun at gaming-geeks (lovingly, of course), be sure to check out PVPonline regularly.
I truly hope that the Two Towers Protest Organization website is intended to be a parody of people who are overly sensitive to all kinds of imagined slights, but it's actually kind of hard to tell. If it IS a parody, then it's a very sad commentary on American socieity that many people assume it is serious - because it really is possible for someone to be this completely idotic; we see it every day.
Here's an example of a question and their response from their FAQ:
The creators of the movie have free speech, so what makes you think they should have to change the name of the movie?
We believe that Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema's actions are in fact hate speech. The movie is intentionally being named The Two Towers in order to capitalize on the tragedy of September 11. Clearly, you cannot deny the fact that this falls under hate speech. We believe that if they will not willingly change the name, the government should step in to stop the movie's production or to force a name change.
Now, for a definite parody or the TTPO site, be sure to stop by the Return of the King Protest Organization website and have a good chuckle.
Jeanne D'arc, author/editor of "Body and Soul" has a number of excellent articles regarding the issue of racism, Republicans, the South and why it's important to be paying attention. Some excellent references from her December 17th piece:
But you'll have to go a little beyond the major newspapers before you get to the really important point: Republicans want Lott out fast not just because he tars their name, but because the longer the story plays out, the more likely it is that people will notice other Republicans who've played similar games.
Joe Conason did a great piece yesterday on John Ashcroft's ties to segregationists. Josh Marshall went after Ashcroft as well. Timothy Noah pointed out that Strom Thurmond is not quite as reconstructed as the press (and, in particular, the New York Times) would have us believe. Hesiod is piling on George Bush I's warm and fuzzy feelings for the 1948 Dixiecrat presidential candidate. Paul Krugman is going after the Republicans' "soft spot for theocracy" (which he seems to have discovered via Atrios .) And in a weird piece defending Lott (I think, it's hard to tell), William Saletan argues that a lot of the Republicans now going after Lott have plenty of "politeness to bigots" and "amnesia about struggles for civil rights" to answer for as well. (Saletan seems to suggest that his makes Lott somewhat less condemnable; I'd suggest it means the condemnation so far has been much too narrowly focused.)
It can't be repeated too often: It isn't just Lott.
Also, be sure to read her commentary on Billie Holiday, Ronald Reagan, John Ashcroft and Trent Lott. Not only does she have some excellent points to make, but the writing itself is great.
From Hate Central:
Contrary to what you've been told in the last 15 months or so, patriotism does not equal blind support of your government. Patriotism is knowing what is best for your country, and that includes calling out your leaders when they cross the line.
Read the rest - it's very good.
[Ed Note: This article has been slightly revised from it's original posting - revisions made at 12:30am 12/20]
Be afraid.... be very afraid.... of anti-war activists.. On December 4 the FBI issued an advisory warning corporate entities of possible danger of attack from anti-war activists. Tom Paine believes this could be an attempt to scare the public, smear the antiwar movement and discourage antiwar protests. What do you think? According to the FBI advisory, this week, December 15-21, has been set aside as a "week of... [No War Blog]
An interesting commentary on a recent advisory issued by the FBI's Awareness of National Security Issues and Response (ANSIR) and what it might mean can be found at TomPaine.com.
According to the article, the FBI has issued a warning of possible violence in the coming week by anti-war activists who have become loosely affiliated through the Internet into a group called "Every Day a Circle Day". The international human rights group, Global Exchange, however, says that they've never heard of "Every Day a Circle Day" or of any plans for actions such as described in the FBI's warning.
Since "Every Day is a Circle Day" is said to be an Internet group, I thought I'd see if I could find out anything about it. Using the ever handy Google, I entered "Every Day a Circle Day", as a phrase, and found only 4 references. The first was to the TomPaine.com article noted above. A second was to LewisNews.com, and is also an article reporting on the warning.
The other two lead to a site called InfoShop News. InfoShop News promotes itself as "anarchist, activist and alternative news". One article is a report on the FBI's warning. The other article, however, was posted on October 19th, and has "Every Day a Circle Day" listed as it's author. Interestingly, when you check the site profile for "Every Day a Circle Day" offers no URL for anyone to refer to or any other information. There is an email address posted at the end of the October 19th article, but according to yesterday's InfoShop News article, an e-mail sent to "Every Day a Circle Day" had not been responded to as of press time.
In part, the October 19th posting reads:
This is a call for a week of action against the war apparatus during December 15-21, 2002. It is necessary, for the sake of those who our governments voraciously long to slaughter, that we take this and every possible opportunity to strike at the executioners' hearts. Further, a deafening void of resistance to recent warmongering would likely result in a truly endless war as we careen closer and closer to a probable cataclysmic conclusion. The lives we save may very well be our own. [...]
[...] ACT, AND DON'T GET CAUGHT
This is a call for an explicit and direct attack upon the war machine. This call is soliciting damages. This is a call for resistance, not merely demonstration or advocacy, or scripted acts of "civil disobedience" where all the participants politely go to jail.
This initial article seems to have drawn little attention, even at the InfoShop News site. Only three responses were posted prior to December 16th, one asking what specific kind of action was to be taken, one speculation that "the sky's the limit" and one noting that there had already been a call made for two days of social disobedience in solidarity with the Argentinean popular rebellion".
The comments posted on December 16th, however, offer the following warning:
Do not allow government provacteurs to promote outrageous violent acts that simply promote a massive and over-whelming crack-down. Repression does not authomatically promote revolt. Usually it simply means even more massive defeat of protest.
Most of the follow-up replies also support the idea that this initial posting was from an agent provocateur. One also points out that ziplip.com, the domain that "Every Day a Circle Day"'s reported e-mail address belongs to is a corporate digital security firm that deals with encryption software.
I also did a search using Google's Newsgroups search engine, and found there only 2 postings, both about the FBI's warning; one at misc.activism.progressive and one at alt.conspiracy.jfk.
What does it all add up to? That's hard to say. On the face of it, the idea of an Internet organization calling for action to be taken against the givernment and the "War Machine" not only has it's e-mail address located at a firm that specializes in encryption but doesn't even have a website is certainly odd. For a grassroots group trying to promote a week-long "Call to Action" to only post one message (that I've been able to find - the TomPaine article notes that about 3 weeks after it was posted at InfoShop news, it also appeared at Maritimes Independent Media Centre, but I was unable to locate the article there), two months prior to the event, with no follow-up, makes little sense. Typically, if you're trying to get the word out about something, you post it as many places as you can, and, in particular, you plaster the Usenet newsgroups with your missive - and you repost it frequently, to remind people and build support. Most importantly, it seems odd that, given the limited distribution of this "call to arms", the FBI would find it of enough concern - even in the absence of a verifiable e-mail address, a website for this "Internet" group and the usual "chatter" that would typically accompany a protest event of this nature - to issue a warning about it.
If anyone had any other information about it, please post it to the comments for this entry. I find it very disturbing to think that someone in the government might have gone so far as to create a message for the purpose of trying to stir up trouble, and that the FBI is using that message (whether they know its origins or not) to discredit the anti-war movement. Unfortuantely, based on what I've been able to find, I'm not sure how else to look at this.
Virtual Occoquan is out today - be sure to stop by and enjoy a nice sampler of what you can read at the Salon Blogs.
Thanks for Mark from Fried Green al-Qaedas for his efforts in putting VO together each week!
[There's been quite a bit of point-counterpoint going on about the issue of cross burnings here at the Salon Blogs -- be sure to check out other viewpoints at "Emphasis Added", "The Raven", "Rayne Today", and "Secular Blasphemy". I may not agree with all of them, but their points are very well thought out and deserve to be given consideration.]
One of the reasons why laws such as the one against cross burnings concern me so much is that determining what is "dangerous" is highly subjective. A few years ago, ABC News did a piece about Wiccans at Fort Hood in Texas. The group had done everything any religious group is required to in order to be allowed to use military property to hold worship services for military personnel.
Unfortunately, many people consider Wicca to be a "dangerous" religion (or, too often, something that doesn't really "count" as a religion), and, of course, a controversy arose. Several politicians began to call for rules to prohibit Wiccans from using military property for their religious observances, even if the group met the requirements for using them. At one point, Representative Bob Barr even called for rules prohibiting Wiccans from serving in the military all together, and tried to slip riders onto military appropriations bills to forbid any military funding from being used to accomodate Wiccans religious practices.
The danger cited in this case was not one of phyisical violence, but rather a danger of lowered morale, potential insubordination, making non-Wiccan/Pagan personnel uncomfortable and unwilling to work next to Wiccan/Pagan counterparts and other, similar, concerns. In fact, the laundry list sounded much like the one used to keep gays from being allowed to serve in the military - another group labeled "dangerous". In addition, the common, but incorrect, belief that Wiccans perform animal sacrifices was brought up as an argument against allowing Wiccans to worship on military property. At one point, Barr reportedly expressed concern that troops would have to start taking goats into the field with them if Wiccans were going to be allowed to hold their services.
This may not seem like it has much bearing on the burning cross debate, but the underlying issue is the same: someone wants to see a form of expression (be it religious or racist) they consider morally wrong and potentially dangerous to be outlawed. It's not much of a stretch to take the concept of "potentially dangerous" and apply it to any of a wide variety of things.
One other example I mentioned in my earlier comments at is that of video games (and, by extention, other forms of entertainment) that have been blamed for the actions of others. Shows like "Jackass", "Bevis and Butthead", professional wrestling, and "That's Incredible" (for a much older example) have all been singled out at one point or another as causing deaths or serious injuries. Games like "Doom", "Duke Nukem" and "Grand Theft Auto" have been cited as having inspired criminal acts.
The level of potential danger from these games, shows and movies is not that different from that of a cross burning - and their audiences are much larger. There's little talk, however, of banning or forbidding certain kinds of behaviour in movies or TV shows, or of preventing games manufacturers from making certain kinds of games. Granted, their message is not one of violence stemming from hatred, but that can still serve as the stimulus for violent or criminal acts.
It is the subjective nature of what is "dangerous" that makes the slope slippery. As just a cause as opposing racism may be (and I very firmly believe it is one of the most important issues our nation faces), the questions of who determines what is dangerous, and how those determinations are made are not easy ones to answer. Unless those questions are answered, however, there's no clear line of demarcation between what kinds of dangerousness require legal or statuatory controls.
Senate GOP to meet on Lott's fate
December 16, 2002
By David Espo
Associated Press
WASHINGTON-- Senate Republicans will meet early next month to settle the fate of Sen. Trent Lott as party leader in the wake of a racially charged controversy, GOP sources said Monday.
The sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the meeting would be called for Jan. 6, the day before the Senate convenes for a new session under Republican control.
The decision came as White House spokesman Ari Fleischer criticized Lott's comments anew, and a key GOP senator issued a statement that pointedly refrained from saying Lott should remain as leader.
While the meeting is 3 weeks off - allowing time for the issue to cool down and calls for Trent Lott's ouster as Senate Majority Leader to pass - it will be happening, and it opens the door for Lott to be removed. What hasn't been quite as well publicized is the opportunity this also opens for Democrats.
If Lott is removed as Majority Leader, it is generally believed that he will also resign from the Senate, and the governor of Mississippi would then be in a position to appoint his replacement. The Democrat governor of Mississippi.
What's most interesting at this point, however, is that, while the White House is not calling for Lott to resign, they are not encouraging him to say, either. In fact, Repubicans have been told that if Lott does either lose or resign his leadership position and, subsequently, also resigns as a Senator, Bush is "willing to accept the consequences, " including his probable replacement by a Democratic Senator, appointed by the governor of Mississippi.
If Democrats can keep this issue alive Lott may either find it necessary to resign on his own accord, or Senate Republicans may feel that they have no option other than to replace him - either way creating the opportunity for another Democrat to enter the Senate, and providing one more vote in the effort to keep Bush from running roughshod over the Constiution.
-=<*>=-
On a related note, Joe Conason has some very interesting points to make about John Ashcroft's own history of questionable affiliations with white supremacist and segregationist groups. Granted, Ashcroft has not made a recent issue of his beliefs the way Trent Lott has, but it is still worth noting.
Number 2 GOP Senator calls for new vote
MSNBC
SEN. DON Nickles, Lott’s deputy for six years as the GOP whip, urged other Republican senators to consider picking a new leader because of the controversy about Lott’s comments that conveyed nostalgia for the policies of racial segregation.
Nickles, who had kept silent on Lott’s remarks, said he accepts Lott’s multiple apologies over the last week.
“I am concerned that Senator Lott has been weakened to the point that may jeopardize his ability to enact our agenda and speak to all Americans,” Nickles told ABC’s “This Week.” “There are several outstanding senators who are more than capable of effective leadership, and I hope we have an opportunity to choose.” [...]
[...] Under Senate GOP rules, a meeting of the rank and file must be called if five senators request it. Simmons said Nickles had not yet asked other senators to support his call for a meeting to consider Lott’s fate. [...]
[...] There long have been rumblings that Nickles, spearheading some of the more conservative Republican senators, might someday mount a challenge to Lott. Lawmakers have described the two men as having a cool relationship, and Lott has sometimes been seen by conservatives as too willing to cut deals with Democrats. [...]
No real comments to add at this point, I just thought this was an interesting development. If you feel strongly that Lott should step down, this might be a good time to look up your Congressional representatives and, if you have a Republican Senator, contact him or her to suggest that s/he step forward as one of the 5 senators needed to trigger a meeting and possible re-election for the Majority Leader's post. If you scroll down this page a bit, you'll see a form you can use to locate the contact information for your Senators and Representatives.
One of the hot topics among the Salon Bloggers has been the current Supreme Court case regarding whether or not the government may ban cross-burnings. Some see the issue as a matter of free speech, and others see it as a matter of threats and intimidation. What makes the issue difficult is that it's really a bit of both.
I agree whole-heartedly that a burning cross, placed on public land or, worse, on someone's property, is clearly a threat, and have no objection to seeing such acts banned. I consider it to be no different than if someone went up to a home and spray-painted racial or religious epithets on it. These are destructive acts, done on another's property, and intended to hurt, frighten, intimidate or threaten that specific person. I'll help you round them up and throw them in jail, no hesitation.
Where I run into a problem, though, is if the cross is being burned by someone on their own property. As hateful and repugnant as many may find it, people do have the right to express their hatred of other races, religions, etc., in thier own homes and on their own property, as well as the right to allow others of a like mind to do so as well. My understanding of the law is that it's not even illegal to say that you want to see all of [insert focus of bigotry here] dead. Where it crosses over into a criminal act is when it can be shown that what was said (or otherwise expressed) not only lead to an actual or attempted act of violence, but was intended to lead to an actual or attempted act of violence. Even saying "Kill all [insert focus of bigotry here]s" is allowable, unless you actually plan to start killing them or are attempting to incite other to do so.
Part of where the difference between burning a cross on public property or property belonging to someone else, and burning it on private property comes in is that when the cross is burned on public lands or someone else's property, the threat is made much clearer. If it's burned on someone's property, it is a threat directly against that person, and legal action can and should be taken against the perpetrators. When burned on public property, it is a clear threat against all minorities in that area. But when it's burned on someone's own property, it is an expression of their own hatred, but it become less threatening, because it's not out where "anyone" can see it, nor is it aimed at anyone in particular. This doesn't mean it's harmless, because it can still incite strong feelings in the people who are their to witness and participate in the burning, but it becomes more of an expression of solidarity between members of the group, and not a message to those whom they oppose.
Rob at Emphasis Added, who feels that it should be banned all together, noted:
It’s worth going to such lengths to ban the symbol because it is part of a larger public commitment to ban racist violence. I strongly believe that society is better served by this policy, as I’m sure you all do too. But if you’re going to be serious about it, you have to confront racist activity with the force of law and acknowledge that some symbols – such as cross-burning, or brandishing a swastika – have the effect of actuating powerful emotional responses, often with tragic consequences. Banning the symbols is part and parcel of banning the activity. If you fail to do so out of a general fear of using state power against any form of expression under any circumstances, you leave the open society defenseless against predators who care little for anyone’s liberties. Everyone has their own limit where they draw that line. Defending the rights of people to create a spectacle whose historical purpose has been emotional incitement to violence is where I draw mine.
Rob's mention of the swastika brings up another part of this issue where my own experience may be colouring my views. I am a Norse Pagan, meaning that, as a religion, I worship the ancient Norse Gods from pre-Christian times. While there are many who will use Norse Paganism as an justification for their bigotry, when you read the Eddas and Sagas, there is little (if anything) to support the idea that the Gods demand any kind of racial purity or feel that any race of man is inferior to any other. Pardon me for a moment while I digress with a bit of an explaination:
The stories are populated by many kinds of spiritual beings - the Gods of the Aesir and the Vanir (two separate races of Gods), Jotuns (also called Eitns or Giants), Dwarves, Alfs (Elves) and humans - and it is not only permissible for members of one race to marry members of another, it's fairly common. Many marriages are made between Aesir and Vanir, Aesir and Jotun, Vanir and Jotun and even some between Aesir or Vanir and Human. There are sexual liasons between all those permutations as well as Vanir and Dwarf. Jotuns who marry Aesir or Vanir are elevated to the status of God, and Loki, one of the main Norse Gods is actually a Jotun whom Odin claimed as his brother, elevating him to the status of God. The Norse prophesy about the end of the old Gods - Ragnarok - says that after the old Gods have been killed during the battle between good and evil, their sons and daughters will rise to take their places in Asgard and Vanaheim and rule over the new earth and the rebirth of mankind. Many of these sons and daughters, including the children of Thor (the most commonly worshiped of the Norse Gods) will be of mixed race.
Even the practices of the Vikings shows that racism was not a big concern for them. One reason why Vikings were so successful in conquering so many lands is that once they landed and had won the military battle, they then married the women of the land, and took over the society by breeding with them.
So, being a Norse Pagan does not make one a racist, though we often have to suffer with that label. The matter becomes a bit more complicated, though, when we come to the matter of the swastika. Before Hitler adopted the swastika as one of his main symbols, it had, for centuries, been the sun-wheel - a representation of the sun and the turning of the year. It was a symbol of strength, hope and good fortune, and an important reminder to the people who lived in the cold - and often dark - north lands that the sun would return, the earth would warm again, grain would grow, herds would thrie, an life would continue. In some other parts of the world, notably in some Asian cultures, it is still seen as a symbol of good fortune. (Not long ago, in fact, there was a flap over one of the Pokeman cards that had a swastika drawn on it, because when it was released in Japan, the symbol was not viewed as a symbol of hate there.) Hitler's use of it twisted and perverted it in ways that make its original meaning unrecognizable.
For myself, personally, I have chosen not to use the swastika out of respect for the memory of its more recent use. The Holocaust is nothing less than one of the greatest evils ever seen or perpetrated by mankind, and as a species, we simply cannot afford to forget it or minimize the horror it was. It angers me when I hear petulant cry-babies on mailing lists call a moderator who is enforcing the rules a "list Nazi" or when a show like Seinfeld creates a running character such as the "Soup Nazi". Invoking the specter of Naziism in such a way does nothing but trivialize the truth of what they were. A stern disciplinarian on a mailing list is not going to murder 6 million people and torture untold numbers more - at worst, they'll just kick someone's butt of the list.
There are other Norse Pagans, however, who feel a strong draw to the swastika and it's original meaning - as the Sun-Wheel. Some have decided to adopt a somewhat modified version of the swastika, with curved lines instead of the sharp-angled arms of its more familiar form, but others want to reclaim the symbol as it was long used. Do I agree with what they're doing? No, but I don't think it should be illegal for them to do so, either, which means it must also be left legal for the racists to use it as well (unless, as with the cross burning, they place it on public property or someone else's property.)
Situations like this are why I disagree with making something - even a hateful symbol - illegal under any circumstances. Just as some will say that using a burning cross on private property is a social danger because it can create the atmosphere where people think it's OK to take violent action against others, there are those who would argue that any of a number of other symbols, statements or forms of expression are a social danger because of what actions they might incite. But banning something because of what is might cause could open up a can of worms we won't ever know how to close.
There are some studies as well as anectodal evidence that violence on TV, in the movies or in music can lead people to become more violent themselves. Many computer and video games have been pointed out as being a social danger because they put players in the position of being a killer - and the action is often realistic enough to create similar rushes of adrenaline and a sense of satisfaction at shooting your way out of a close call. Such games have been associated with many of the school shootings of the last few years, and there are reports that one of them was used to help train John Lee Malvo, the younger of the suspects in the Washington DC sniper shootings earlier this year. If we start to accept that it's ok to ban certain forms of expression because they pose a danger to the social health, do we not then also need to look to other arenas where forms of expression or, as in this case, entertainment, may also pose a danger to the social health?
In many ways, banning a certain form of expression actually ends up giving it more power. Hate groups are unlikely to stop using the burning cross if it is made illegal - instead they will use it to not only express their hatred, but also to express their willingness to go against the law to make their point. This, in turn, gives the message that there is valour in breaking the law for their cause, and elevates the lawbreaker to the status of hero - or, if caught and prosecuted - martyr. Allowing the bigots to burn crosses on their own property prevents this kind of elevation, while still allowing those who are making threats against specific individuals or the minority popuation in general to be prosecuted for their acts.
This isn't a matter for which there is an easy answer. In a time, however, where the government is already trying to curtail our freedoms as much as possible, and under the watch of an Attorney General who has equated disagree with the President with treason, I think it is far more prudent to try to keep the boundaries of what is allowable speech as widly spread as possible. Working through social pressure to make it clear that some forms of expression are unacceptable is always a viable option, without stripping anyone of their rights.
Wal-Mart sued for calling police
By DAVID CLOUSTON
The Salina Journal
Tamie Dragone was on a routine shopping trip at Salina's Wal-Mart Supercenter when, without a second thought, she dropped off a roll of family snapshots for 1-hour film developing.
Now she's suing the store she says humiliated her and invaded her family's privacy after some photographs of her 3-year-old daughter caught the eye of photo clerks and were turned over to Salina police.
Dragone is asking in excess of $75,000 in actual damages, plus an unspecified amount of punitive damages.
According to Dragone and a petition filed in Saline County District Court, the pictures showed her 3-year-old daughter topless playing in the family's back-yard kiddie pool with her father, and one showing their daughter's naked bottom as she lay on the living room floor.
It is, for the most part, a good thing when photo clerks pay attention to the photos being developed and can alert the police if they run across something that could indicate child abuse, child pornography or other criminal activity. Unfortunately, erring on the side of caution can easily become zero tolerance, even when it should be evident that no criminal activity was taking place.
In the case of Tamie Dragone, the photos, as described, are the kind of thing that should clearly be innocuous. While child pornography can certainly run the gamut of subject matters, photos of topless three-year-old girls are not uncommon. Photos of that nature show up on shows like A&E's Biography, showing celebrities in a similar state of undress at a very early age. Most family photo collections will contain similar shots, which may be embarassing to the subject once they're older, but are, by and large, otherwise harmless.
Wal-Mart says that they have a policy of not processing any nude photos and contacting the police if they see anything that is questionable. The clerk's reaction, therefore, may be somewhat understandable. He or she may have been unsure if the images were something to be concerned about or otherwise in violation of the store's policy, but rather than calling the police immediately, the clerk would have been wiser to show the images to the manager for their opinion, first. Once the police were called, however, it is mind-boggling that they would proceed to interrogate the woman and confiscate the photos. One look at the images should have told them that nothing untoward was happening an leave it at that.
Just as the child abuse hysteria of the 1980's led to rumours of Satanic Ritual Abuse (most, if not all, of which have since been discredited), what started out as legitimate concerns about child pornography has led to situations where innocent people are being harrangued by the police over pictures that may contain some nudity, but are neither exploitative nor sexualized in any way.
Florida teacher tells students there's no Santa; parents angry
Coral Springs, Florida-AP -- No, there really isn't a Santa Claus.
That's what a substitute teacher in Florida told kindergarten kiddies at Forest Hills Elementary School -- and their parents are not happy about it.
Maybe I'm a mutant, but I've never really understood why parents get so upset when their children are told that there is no Santa. Last year, it was a minister who was in trouble for having spilled the beans, this year its a substitute teacher.
When I was young, I'm sure I enjoyed the Santa story as much as the next kid, but for the most part, I recall just going along with everyone making a big deal out of Santa Clause becuase it seemed so important to all these adults that I believe in him. In the long run, though, the best Christmas memories I had were of the years when my mother and I would join my dad down at the nursing home he worked at and help serve a special Christmas dinner to the residents who has no where else to go.
I've often wondered about the wisdom of teaching young children about Santa Clause, and the idea that parents are essentially insisting that teachers and preachers go along with it, or risk enough of a public outcry to garner national news attention, is disturbing. I mean, when you get right down to it, Santa Clause is a lie. There is no Santa - at least not in any kind of a corporeal, tangible sense (since one can technically argue that Santa is "there" in every act of Christmas "goodwill") - so when children are taught to believe in him, they're being taught to believe a lie. However much fun it may be, it's hard to see that its a good thing, especially with how the image of Santa and the demand for gifts seems to have increased over the last few years.
Children are supposed to trust that their parents, teachers and religious leaders will teach them the truth, and if parents learn that they are teaching their children things that aren't true, parents are often justifiably upset. In this case, however, the parents are upset because the teacher told the children the truth. Sure, kids are going to be disappointed when they learn Santa isn't real, but what sense is there in trying to prevent that from happening? Eventually, it will - it can't be prevented forever. I remember on one mailing list I'm a member of, one of the women did not feel it woudl be right to teach her child about Santa (which should be her choice), but she was genuinely concerned that, if she did teach her children that Santa wasn't real, and they said anything to their friends, she would be exoricated by her neighbors.
What I've always found the most ironic, though, about the whole tradition of teaching children about Santa, is that it seems to be to be a self-defeating propisition. Most families want to raise their children to be good Christians, and so they start teaching their children about Jesus and God early on - at about the same time they also start teaching about Santa. From there, you end up with a situation where a parent teaches a child that there is a man who is able to watch them at all times - but can't readily be detected; knows if they're behaving themselves or no; loves them; wants to give them special gifts and lives eternally.
Yes, the description is a bit vague and, as it is above, could be used to describe either Jesus or Santa Clause. That's the point. To a small child, its hard to make a significant distinction between the two, and yet eventually they WILL learn that Santa doesn't exist. What, then, is going to help them retain any faith in Christ? Is a question I think parents need ask themseles, and decide whether they think their child will benefit from believing in Santa (aside from just haing fun with it), or if it will only teach that their parents, teachers and religious leaders will lie to them and give them reason to question the concept of God their parents want them to learn.
Congratulations to Jan Haugland of Secular Blasphemy for getting mentioned in MSNBC Weblogs Central "Best of the Blogs" feature!
Jackie Doyle writes somewhat formally from New York City, “Please take a look at Secular Blasphemy. Jan S. Haugland is writing intelligent commentary on current issues, while sharing odd and funny items he finds on the web. He also has a section that contains his interesting articles on religion, science and history. Haugland has an M.A. in History from The University of Bergen, Norway. I’ve enjoyed reading his many articles that have circulated all over the web.”
Today's been a big day for talk of resignations. The mainstream media is all a-twitter with quesitons about whether or not Trent Lott can salvage his career, or if he will resign as Senate Majority Leader. Cardinal Law's latest offer of resignation has been accepted by the Vatican and both Henry Kissinger and George Mitchell have resigned as the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the September 11 Investigation committee.
Several articles on the controversy surrounding Trent Lott have already appeared here, providing additional examples of times he's been, shall we say, racially insensitive. The Talking Points Memo blog (credited today on MSNBC as having kept the story alive until the mainstream media finally realized that there was a story) has an impressive collection of links, quotes, sound files and other information providing details of just how often Lott has made his views on race-relations known.
Lott, today, has offered yet another apology, an has indicated that he it talking to Black Entertainment Television (BET) about giving a speech on their network about his "hopes and dreams" for people "regardless of their race." He also stated that he has no intention of resigning, and promised that "[i]n the days and months to come, I will dedicate myself to undo the hurt I have caused and will do all that I can to contribute to a society where every American has an opportunity to succeed."
CNN has the video footage of Lott's press conference available on their video page.
Cardinal Law's resignation is an important step in the Catholic Church's attempt to deal with the continuing scandal, and ongoing problem, of sexual abuse by the priesthood. Law has, for far too long, tried to hide the fact that a problem existed, and, as the problem has come to light to both Catholics and the nation as a whole, he has worked more to protect the church from having to face the penalties it has earned, than to try and help those who have been hurt by the actions of priests and the inactions of the church. Even if Law is not solely to blame for the church's reticence to acknowledge the problem and take responsibility for the damage it has caused, he has become an important symbolic figured, personifying the "cover your ass" attitude that the church has displayed.
As for Henry Kissinger, his appointment as the leader of the panel that is being formed to investigate the September 11th bombing was controversial from the outset. While Kissinger is considered to be an excellent diplomat, his history is filled with questions about and accusations of involvement in a variety of controversies, and he is reported to be in favour of potentially damaging information being kept secret. Some had even suggested that part of why Kissinger has been selected was due to his secritive nature, given President Bush's initial opposition to any kind of a panel investigation into the WTC/Pentagon attacks.
Questions were also raised about potential conflicts of interest between clients Kissinger's consulting firm represents and the investigation itself. In resigning, Kissinger said that he was confident that no such conflicts actually existed, but was concerned that "the controversy would quickly move to the consulting firm I have built and own."
Kissenger's resignation follows that of Democrat appointee George Mitchell as Vice Chairman. Mitchell cited concerns about time commitments as the reason for his own resignation.
The People for the American Way have drafted a petition to President Bush asking that he demand Senator Lott's resignation. In their write up as to why they feel Lott should resign, they included a fuller explaination of why Lott's speaking to the Council for Concerned Citizens should be considered questionable, as well some notes on his voting record on major race-related issues.
President criticizes Lott’s remarks
PHILADELPHIA, Dec. 12 — President Bush raised his voice in a political controversy enveloping Trent Lott, saying the Senate Republican leader’s comments about the segregated past were “offensive” and required the apology he gave. “Any suggestion that the segregated past was acceptable or positive is offensive, and it is wrong,” Bush said Thursday to a mixed-race audience, drawing long applause.
“Recent comments by Sen. Lott do not reflect the spirit of our country,” Bush said.
“He has apologized and rightly so,” he said. “Every day our nation was segregated was a day that America was unfaithful to our founding ideals.”
While it's good that President Bush has finally addressed Trent Lott's comment from Strom Thurmond's birthday celebration, he has also said that he does not feel Lott should resign as Senate Majority Leader. If, however, as Bush said, any suggestion that continued segregation would have had a positive effect on society is offensive and wrong, and that segregation is a violation of what America is meant to be, how can Lott be considered an acceptable leader for the Senate or the Republican Party?
This isn't the only time Lott has said or done something that has raised questions about his own views on segregation. In 1980, he made a very similar comment to the one that currently has brought him under fire, when he said that if Strom Thurmond has been elected, we "wouldn't be in the mess we are today." Around that same time, he also filed a friend of the court brief supporting Bob Jones University's attempt to preserve their tax exempt status, even though they had a ban on interracial dating.
"Racial discrimination does not always violate public policy," Mr. Lott, then a congressman, said in the 1981 friend-of-the-court filing.
He cited university admission programs intended to promoted racial diversity. "If racial discrimination in the interest of diversity does not violate public policy," the brief said, "then surely discrimination in the practice of religion is no violation."
Lott has also spoken to the Council of Concerned Citizens, a Southern conservative organization that espouses segregationist ideals (their entry in the Google search engine shows a web page description of "Advocating against minorities and racial integration," and lists them in the "Society > Issues > Race-Ethnic-Religious Relations > Race and Racism > Supremacy and Separatism > White" category). As noted in an excellent editorial by Jonah Goldberg of The National Review Online, Lott also wrote a column for their newsletter (though he has said he didn't know what they were up to at the time he wrote for them).
Lott has also expressed sympathy for causes such as the restoration of Jefferson Davis' citizenship.
As Goldberg noted in his editorial:
One has only two choices here: Either, you take Lott at his word or you don't. If you don't believe him, then, well, he's a racist and a foolish one for being so obvious about it. But if you take him at his word, that he made a mistake, that's even worse. I mean, he's been smeared with the racist label enough times to have learned his lesson, especially considering the fact he's supposed to lead the Republican Party.
Bush should demonstrate that he is serious in his belief that segregation is wrong and tell Sen. Lott that, in light of his recent statement, combined with other such statements in the past and other actions that have shown support for segregationist groups and causes, he is unfit to be a national leader, and demand his resignation.
Bush Warns Iraq of Harsh Response
Wed Dec 11, 3:34 PM ET
By SANDRA SOBIERAJ, Associated Press Writer
In a new defense strategy submitted to Congress on Wednesday, President Bush warned Iraq and other hostile countries that the United States is prepared to use "overwhelming force" — including nuclear weapons — in response to any chemical or biological attack.
The threat was contained in a White House document called the "National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction." Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer called it a declaration "of how seriously the United States would take it in the event that weapons of mass destruction were used."
Does it bother anyone else that our "National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction" is apparently based on the threat of our using Weapons of Mass Destruction? Of course, maybe it shouldn't be too surprising, since we also use the death penalty to prove that killing people is wrong, and that not teaching kids anything about sex will help make sure that they don't have pre-marital sex, get pregnant or pass around sexually-transmitted diseases.
Salon Bloggers at Yahoo!Groups
I thought it might be fun to have a mailing list for the authors/editors/owners (whatever it is we call ourselves *g*) of Salon Blogs, so I set one up. If you'd like to join, you can use the box in this message, send a blank e-mail to: salonblog-subscribe@yahoogroups.com or visit: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/salonblog/join
(Just as an FYI, if you're intersted in a mailing list for Salon Bloggers, but don't like the idea of using Yahoo Groups, let me know - I chose to start it there because its fairly common and the do have funcitons such as polls and files if there are things we want to share with each other, BUT if there's enough interest in the list, but not wanting to deal with Yahoo is preventing people from signing up, I can run a private mailing list through my web host, and can move it there).
Salon Bloggers WebRing
I'm also starting a Salon Bloggers Webring, so that visitors can just kind of surf through the community. If you'd like to take part in that as well, you can fill out the form below or go to: http://www.ringsurf.com/netring?ring=salonblogs;action=addform
According to Carl Hulse in the New York Times, Strom Thurmond's birthday party wasn't the first time that Trent Lott had expressed his belief that if Thurmond had been elected President in 1948 that the problems we face today wouldn't exist.
Fortunately, more attention is being given to his latest reitteration of this belief, and a closer look is being taken at other comments and actions over the years that seem to indicate that Lott may be sympathetic to, of not out-right supportive of, segregationists and racists.
-=<*>=-
A new survey, commissioned by the fundamentalist/evangelical lobbying group American Family Association, and conducted by a fundamentalist/evangelical research group, Barna, shows that among non-Christians, evangelicals aren't very well liked. In fact, they rated lower than lawyers, but just above prostitutes, and finished 10th out of 11 groups that were being rated.
Particularly amusing is the puzzled reaction from evangelicals to the poll. George Barna, president of the Barna Group, noted:
"We may not be 'evil' people, we may not be 'bad' people -- we may be completely loving and wonderful. But somehow we are being perceived by non-Christians in America as a group of people who are not particularly loving [and] not particularly generous, kind, or understanding,"
The one concern is that, one of the reasons fundamentalist/evangelical groups and policies are unpopular with non-Christians is because they have been very open and up front about their goals, their beliefs, their policies and their politics. If they are now going to be concerned with improving their image, it will likely require them to start being less open and doing more to press for their agenda while trying to keep their goals, beliefs, politics and policies more well hidden from the general public.
-=<*>=-
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration's effort to track down terrorists appears to have had an unintended consequence: There are more card-carrying members of the American Civil Liberties Union than ever in its 82-year history.
Since last year's attacks, the ACLU's membership has surged 20%, to about 330,000 nationwide, says executive director Anthony Romero. New membership dues and increased donations have provided a similar boost in income — enough to fund a $3.5 million campaign that includes TV ads criticizing the administration.
It's reassuring to see that there are more people becoming concerned about the direction that the government has been taking since 9/11 and are willing to help in the fight, even if its just by buying a membership. If nothing else, this increase in memberships will help send a message to the Bush Administration that people do care, and that citizens can't be counted on to just sit back and be rolled over by the "We Have To Protect You From The Terrorists" steamroller.
Caught whistling Dixie
Four days later, Lott's controversial comment gets some attention. But not from top congressional Democrats.
By Anthony York
[...] On Monday, however, Al Gore spoke up. In an interview with CNN's Judy Woodruff Monday, Gore said, "It is not a small thing, Judy, for one of the half dozen most prominent political leaders in America to say that our problems are caused by integration and that we should have had a segregationist candidate. That is divisive and it is divisive along racial lines. That's the definition of a racist comment."
"Crossfire" host Paul Begala said Monday that the relative lack of attention paid to Lott's comments "does point out a very interesting difference between the left and the right. But more than the parties, it points to the differences between the right-wing and left-wing media." Had this been a Democratic mistake, it would have been blasted on Fox News and picked up elsewhere, he claims.
Begala says that the chorus of media voices can have a very real political impact, as he claims it did in the Minnesota Senate race after the death of Democratic Sen. Paul Wellstone. "That echo chamber swung the election away from [Democratic candidate Walter] Mondale to [Republican Norm] Coleman," Begala says. "It was not just the conduct at the memorial service" -- which became an openly partisan affair -- "but the incredible orchestrated political conduct afterwards that helped turn that race." [...]
It is interesting that comments promoting Democrats and Democratic ideals at Senator Wellstone's funeral were so much more poorly received than Trent Lott's comments at Senator Thurmond's birthday celebration. Maybe its because I'm a liberal, but I find a comment that clearly implies that having elected a segretationist 50 years ago would have prevented the problem we have today far more offensive and indicitive of far worse judgement than people rallying to be able to continue the life's work and passion of a recently fallen comrade at his funeral.
I've also found the silence on this matter profoundly disappointing, given that only 4 years ago a politician in Washington DC felt pressured to resign after using the term "niggardly", even though "niggardly" is not actually realted to "nigger". People assumed that it was a racial epithet and the outcry was sufficient that he offered his resignation (which was initially accepted, though at last report, the mayor intended to rehire him). Even as recently as September of this year, a teacher in North Carolina was disciplined when she used the word in class. Shouldn't the outcry be even larger when one of our national political leaders, who has a history of being affiliated with racists organizations, says, in essence, that continuing the segregationist policies of the past would have been a good thing?
Lott has issued an apology and says that "he was not trying to suggest that he embraces "the discarded policies of the past." While he does say that he meant the remarks "light-heartedly", he doesn't really clarify what he did mean. Even taking into account that most people, when saluting someone on an advanced birthday, will make somewhat exaggerated claims, if you're going to say that electing Thurmond in 1948 would have prevented todays problems, you cannot separate the man from the policies he promoted, since it would have been through the implementation of those policies that the the prevention of today's problems (according to Lott) would have occured.
Part of the problem I have is that Lott has been in politics long enough to know what kind of comments will cause problems and which won't. He should know exactly how a statement of this nature will be taken, and he should have the good judgement not to make it. I also have a serious problem, however, with the lack of response from the media, and, more importantly, from civil libertiarians, Democrats and others who traditionally can be counted on to pounce on a gaffe of this nature. In the article quoted above, the implication is made that part of the silence may be because the Democrats know that they will need the South when it comes time for the 2004 elections. If this is the case, than, in my opinion, our country is much worse off than we may be thinking. If the price of victory is the tacit approval of racist beliefs and holding one's tongue when such comments are made by a national leader, it would, at best, be a hollow victory, won at the expense of the party's principles.
Tech a Hit in Mississippi Schools. Students in Mississippi's public schools have built close to 6,000 computers from scratch, with the goal of outfitting the state's classrooms for the digital age and gaining tech skills they can use in the real world. By Katie Dean. [Wired News]
With as much bad news as there is about the country's educational system, its good to hear about successes as well - and this computer-building program being used in Mississippi seems to be a significant one.
Hattiesburg High School is one of about 40 schools in 27 counties around the state that offer computer construction programs. ExplorNet, a nonprofit organization, trains teachers, provides curricula and orders the necessary computer parts.
Students learn how to build computers from scratch, and to troubleshoot and refurbish donated machines. They also learn basic networking, which prepares them for A+ certification as an entry-level computer technician.
The program is supported by a combination of state, public and private dollars. It's also helping Mississippi reach an important goal. By Dec. 31, every classroom in the state will have an Internet-accessible computer. It will be the first state to claim this distinction, according to Gov. Ronnie Musgrove.
Teachers are reporting that the students involved in the computer building program are not only developing marketable skills, but are becoming more interested in their other classes, even among kids who have been labeled as being "at risk". In a sense, the fact that the schools are also getting Internet-ready computers is almost just a "side-effect" of the program.
Unfortunately, there is one potential problem with a program like this: Unless the schools want to double as computer stores, there are going to be only so many computers that they need. Sure, the computers will need to be updated periodically and are likely to have breakdowns, but the current large-scale building of computers can't be sustained indefinately. Of course, if students spent only one class per day working on building computers, and the school districts were able to sell whatever computers were built that they did not need, I'm sure the districts' budgets wouldn't complain too much.
This kind of instruction in practical, marketable skills, especially ones that can help lead to a professional certification (such as the A+ Certification that many of these students are planning to obtain) can go a long ways to help students have a better outlook for their own futures, and with the kind of wages one can earn doing computer building, networking and repairing, students may have a greater opportunity to raise money for futher education - including working towards a college degree. In the long run, that not only benefits the students, but it can also benefit the economy by providing more skilled and better educated workers.
Schools have long offered such courses as woodshop, auto mechanics, cooking and home economics, intended to help students develop specific skills for adult life. Now, Mississippi is showing that - at least for a while - computer building, networking and repair can be taught in schools as well, in a way that benefits both the students and the schools. Hopefully, other job-oriented skills can be identified so that similar programs can be run when the need for newly-built computers winds down.
The ACLU is now running an interesting ad, pointing out what John Ashcroft has been doing to the Constitution. It's requires Real Player, but if you can, check it out.
Lott Decried For Part Of Salute to Thurmond
GOP Senate Leader Hails Colleague's Run As Segregationist
By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 7, 2002; Page A06
[...] Speaking Thursday at a 100th birthday party and retirement celebration for Sen. Thurmond (R-S.C.) in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Lott said, "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either." [...]
Lott never specifies which "problems" he's referring to. Given, however, that the Dixiecrat party that Strong Thurmond represented during his presidential run adopted a platform which read, in part "We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race, " it's a reasonable conclusion that whatever "problems" he means are somehow related to the still-slow, but growing, integration of society.
[...] In 1998 and 1999, Lott was criticized after disclosures that he had been a speaker at meetings of the Council of Conservative Citizens, an organization formed to succeed the segregationist white Citizens' Councils of the 1960s. In a 1992 speech in Greenwood, Miss., Lott told CCC members: "The people in this room stand for the right principles and the right philosophy. Let's take it in the right direction, and our children will be the beneficiaries." [...]
It's troubling that, with his background of speaking to the Council of Conservative Citizens and making comments indicating that he agrees with their goals (which, to a great extent, are to re-segregate the races), the citizens of Mississippi see fit to return him to the Senate on a regular basis and that the Senate Republicans seem to consider him an honourable leader for their party.
Republicans in the Senate need to step forward and make it known that they do not respect such beliefs and that they do not support a man who would make such comments. In giving his tribute to Sen. Thurmond, it is unlikely that Lott did not give serious consideration to the words that he would say, or the message that he would convey. It is hard to imagine that he did not also have an idea as to the fact that his comments would cause a stir. What then, does he hope to gain by making them? Is he trying to play to the segment of the country that still believes that blacks and other minorities should not have a place of equality within society? There's something sad in the idea that racism is still such a problem in this nation that there's even a "hate vote" to go after.
Just a short note of welcome to "Real Live Preacher" - who seems to be a very interesting Preacher, indeed!
Since we're now getting into winter, Rayne Today has seen fit to offer an excellent guide to snowstorm emergency preparedness. Be sure to review it and make sure you'll be ok if Skadhi decides to make a sudden stop in your town.
Posted on Fri, Dec. 06, 2002
Courtney sentenced to 30 years in prison for diluting medicines
By MARK MORRIS
The Kansas City Star
In a case that stunned the nation and outraged Kansas Citians, former pharmacist Robert R. Courtney received a maximum 30-year sentence Thursday for diluting cancer patients' drugs so he could make more money. [...]
[...] In his confession, Courtney said greed motivated him to dilute drugs. He also said he diluted medications to cover $1.1 million in income taxes that he owed in 2001 and to make the final $333,000 payment on a promised $1 million contribution to his church's building fund.
I have long had serious problems trusting doctors and other medical personnel, largely because I have had so many health problems, and too often it seems that the doctors, therapists and other professionals haven't had any answers. In the last decade, though, my distrust has grown significantly, after watching my father struggle through a year of pain due to a botched knee replacement surgery, and my mother-in-law's death following what was supposed to be a simple outpatient test. The case of the pharmacist diluting drugs has not done anything to inspire greater trust.
When this story first broke, I was shocked. The idea that someone would tamper with medicine that people depended on for their lives was astounding - at least until I realized just how much more money he could make by stretching each order of the drugs that much further. Part of why it hit me so hard, though, was locality. I've been in the hospitals where two of him pharmacies were located. I even bought drugs from one of them, though nothing that could have been diluted. Still, having something this monstrous happen so close to home puts a very different perspective on it.
I think part of what shocked me more than anything else, however, is that when he finally got around to saying why he did it, one of the top reasons he listed was because he had made a $1 million dollar pledge to his church, and needed help raising the money to live up to that pledge. I think that, in many ways, this case speaks to the whole concept of faith as a fashion accessory. We hear so often about how Americans believe in God and how many go to church each week. Most of our politicians make their religious affiliations known - often because it helps buy them political support. People make sure that they dress their best for Sunday morning services, and its not that uncommon for people to make a big show of the things they do to help out the church or the community. Yet in their everyday lives, their supposed faith is pushed aside - its tenets no longer binding them to act, speak, dress or think in a certain way, and little, if any, thought is given to the ethical standards that the religion teaches.
For Robert Courtney, it was important that he be seen as a strong supporter of his church's desire to expand, so he made a pledge to donate $1 million. Many would see this as a sign of his commitment to his faith, yet he then turns around, and in order to help raise the money to fulfill this pledge, he takes actions that he must know can only cause greater pain and suffering his patients, or kill them. Drugs that were intended to kill cancer cells were too weak to have any impact on them. While God may look favourably on a nice new church expansion, somehow I don't think He wants to see it done at the expence of people's lives.
Courtney was sentenced today, and will be serving 30 years in prison. Personally, I don't think that's nearly enough, but I'm not the one handing out the sentence.... Prior to his sentencing, victims and their families were allowed to speak, as was Courtney. So, what did he have to say for himself? In part, this:
[...] "From this moment, and for a long time to come, I will be agonizing over what I have done," Courtney said. "My hope is that...everyone knows that I apologize. And I'm sorry. For the rest of my life, any good that I can do, any kindness that I can show, I'll do."
As the Church Lady might say: "Well, isn't that special".
Please join me in signing an online petition asking President Bush to let the weapons inspections work, rather than rushing to war.
Inspections in Iraq have started. Most of us breathed a sigh of relief. Unfortunately, it's become clear that the ultra-hawks in the Bush administration -- Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle -- will not take yes for an answer. While the rest of the world thinks Iraq has backed down, these men are beginning a massive public relations blitz for war.
With the possibility of a peaceful resolution to this crisis at hand, we cannot allow a few men to push the world to war. Send a message to President Bush to let the inspections work at:
http://www.moveon.org/winwithoutwar/
MoveOn.org will compile our messages and present them to the administration, including Secretary of State Powell, and to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan.
The good news is that the ultra-hawks face some serious opposition. Secretary of State Colin Powell and other members of the Bush Administration are willing to give diplomacy a chance, and the State Department's interpretation of the U.N. resolution is a lot more
reasonable than the White House's interpretation.
Unless wiser heads prevail, this is what we should expect:
This could all begin before Christmas -- another wonderful gift to the world from the Bush administration.
President Bush has agreed that war should be the very last resort. Let's hold him and his Administration to those words:
http://www.moveon.org/winwithoutwar/
Please join me and sign on today. We must support policy makers who will oppose these few extremists in the Bush White House who have been looking for an excuse for war from the very beginning.
In my blog-surfing today, I stumbled across "Where Is Raed", a blog written by and Iraqi named Salam. He offers some excellent insite into life in Iraq, and - for me at least - help make Iraq be something more than this abstract place run by a guy our leaders don't like. I strongly recommend giving his blog a bit of your time -- start by reading his post from December 3rd, and then the one from December 4th.
Dec. 5, 2002 | Another law to dodge
If he read this morning's Financial Times, Henry Kissinger probably doesn't feel so enthusiastic about his appointment to run the independent 9/11 commission. Even another opportunity for public "service" may not be enough to convince the international business consultant to reveal the names of all his clients. Yet that is what he must do, according to a legal opinion delivered on Wednesday evening to the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee.
I do hope that this ruling will stand.
Oddly, for someone who tries to pay attention to what goes on in the political world, I'd still managed to have a good opinion of Dr. Kissinger when I heard about his appointment to the 9/11 commission. I suspect that part of why I was unaware of his history is that much of it happend before I was old enough to really comprehend any of it. At any rate, since his appointment, I've read a great deal about his history, and find that I am not appalled at his appointment to chair this investigation. If a requirement for him to disclose all of his clients will either force him to be up front about whatever conflicts might exist, or force him to resign, I think it will be a step in the right direction
I was just looking through the Bill of Rights Defense Committee's website a bit further and found the "Get Well" cards they offer for the Bill of Rights. They suggest that you purchase a pack of the cards and then send them to your congressmen and women as a sign of support for civil rights.
The outside of the card features a drawing of the Bill of Rights in a hospital bed with a thermometer in it's mouth and an ice pack on its head. The inside message reads: "Dear Bill of Rights, We hope Dr. (fill in your Congressperson's name) can help cure you of the Bush-Ashcroft virus."
These cards are great - I'm going to be getting a pack of them myself.
Signs of Intelligence: Patriots act. American citizens are standing up for the Constitution at the local level. [Morons Dot Org]
Morons.org has an absolutely excellent article on the way several cities and towns are fighting the USA PATROIT Act. So far, seventeen cities have passed resolutions that require various measures to help protect the civil rights of citizens, such as mandating that the city governments to act in accordance with state and federal constitutions if there is a conflict between the USA PATROIT Act and the constitution, prevent local law enforcement from taking part in or otherwise aiding actions made under the USA PATROIT Act if such action would be in violation of the constitution, and urging their representatives to do whatever they can to repeal the sections of the USA PATROIT Act that are unconstitutional.
The Morons.org article provides a number of links and more detailed information, plus is pretty inspirational - I recommend checking it out. I also recommend visiting the website of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee for more information on how to get involved.
U.S. can hold 'dirty bomb' suspect
Judge allows attorney access for Padilla
From Phil Hirschkorn
CNN
Wednesday, December 4, 2002 Posted: 3:12 PM EST (2012 GMT)
A judge ruled Wednesday that the federal government can hold the man accused of trying to carry out an al Qaeda "dirty bomb" plot, saying the president can detain enemy combatants even if they are U.S. citizens.
The judge also granted a defense motion allowing the suspect, Jose Padilla, to meet with his attorneys, which the government had not allowed.
Good news -- well, somewhat -- in the Jose Padilla case. The courts have ruled that, while the government can still detain him indefinately and without charges, but they have decided that he has a right to see his lawyers. This is a major first step, and hopefully will help lead to a resolution of his case sooner, rather than later.
Fast Food and the Obesity Problem. Health advocates are increasingly trying to blame food companies for the country's growing obesity problem. By Nat Ives. [Headlines From The NY Times]
I was reading this article that talks about how some of these suits being filed against fast food restaurants may actually need to be taken seriously by the industry. As the article notes:
"It is very possible that tighter advertising restrictions will eventually follow from the gathering pace of concern surrounding the spread of the obesity epidemic," a report from UBS Warburg, the investment bank, said last week . "There will probably be more lawsuits and pressure from consumer groups to change practices."
To head off any repercussions, many brand experts are urging the food industry to act before it is permanently tagged "Big Food" in the public eye. The suggested actions include posting more nutrition information more prominently, offering smaller portions, developing healthier menus and generally expressing more concern over obesity.
Most of the fast food restaurants - and in particular the ones who are currently facing lawsuits - have done a good job of making nutritional information available. They already offer a variety of portion sizes, and most have, in recent years, have added salads or other healthier options to their menus. Obviously, these tactics have not protected them from becoming the target of these kinds of suits, so it's natural to wonder what more they can do, while still providing the kind of fare their customers want.
When they start talking about unspecified "practice changes" the vague sentiment of "expressing more concern" about obesity, I find myself wondering if we're not heading to a point where one day fast food restaurants may feel it's necessary to refuse service to fat people. Initially, that may sound a bit far-fetched, but bars are required to refuse service to people who are too drunk, and airlines are starting to charge fat people for 2 seats, so I'm not sure just how far-fetched of an idea it really is.
[Note from Kriselda:Truthout.com suggest circulating this piece via pamphlets. Since I seem to have a mysterious aversion to paper, I'm "pamphleting" it here, and have added a couple notes where I felt it was needed.]
(*Editors Note | For those TruthOut Readers wishing to become more involved in raising public awareness, this piece by William Rivers Pitt is ideal for pamphleting. You might consider printing it out and circulating it by hand in your community. I suspect the responses you would get might be well worth the price of admission. -- ma)
Take the Homeland Security Quiz!
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Sunday, 1 December, 2002
Question One: Do you approve of the new Homeland Security Department, signed into law by President Bush?
Background: On November 25th, 2002, President Bush signed into law legislation that created a new Homeland Security Department. Called for in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, this new department will merge 22 different government agencies and over 170,000 government employees into one unit. The stated purpose of the new Homeland Security Department is to defend America against future terrorist attacks.
a) Yes, I approve
b) No, I do not approve
c) I am not sure
Question Two: Do you approve of the creation of a 'Total Information Awareness' database by the Department of Defense that will track a wide variety of data regarding every American citizen?
Background: The 'Total Information Awareness' database is the brainchild of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the research and development core of the Department of Defense. The database will gather data regarding credit card purchases, telephone calls made, websites visited, academic grades received, surveys taken, sweepstakes entered, property purchased, financial records, magazine subscriptions, medical procedures and so forth. The data will reveal not only shopping habits but an overall picture of personal lifestyle, including everything from pets owned to religious preferences. Every American will be subject to its scrutiny. It will be run by Admiral John Poindexter, who was criminally convicted in 1990 for lying to Congress, destroying official documents and obstruction of justice in the Iran/Contra scandal.
a) Yes, I approve
b) No, I do not approve
c) I am not sure
[Note from Kriselda: According to the most recent reports I've read, the database and data mining system is being developed by the Office of Information Awareness, under the leadership of Admira John Poindexter, but once the system is ready for implimentation, it is supposed to be turned over to the Justice department for them to actually use. Poindexter's involvement, however, is still very troublesome, given his significant role in the Iran/Contra scandal, his his belief that it was his duty to lie to the President and the people. In addition, if the database and data mining tools are turned over to the Attorney General, that could potentially put John Ashcroft in a position to be able to access extremely detailed data on any citizen, a prospect that should be of concern to anyone.]
Question Three: Do you believe that citizens should be allowed to sue in civil court the Eli Lilly Pharmaceutical Corporation for the production of products which cause autism in children?
Background: For more than 40 years, the Eli Lilly Corporation developed and sold a mercury-based preservative used in many vaccines against childhood diseases. The preservative, called thimerosal, has been linked to the development of autism in children exposed to it. 45 lawsuits have already been filed by parents against Eli Lilly. These lawsuits seek to establish Eli Lilly's liability regarding the development of autism in these children.
a) Yes, these parents should be allowed to sue Eli Lilly in civil court b) No, these parents should not be allowed to sue Eli Lilly in civil court
c) I am not sure
Question Four: Do you approve of the Freedom of Information Act?
Background: The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was passed in 1966 to allow public access to records and documents created by federal agencies. Since its passage, all fifty states have passed their own versions of the FOIA. The Supreme Court, in a case entitled NLRB v. Robbins Tire Co. in 1978, spoke of the importance of the Act: "The basic purpose of FOIA is to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed."
a) Yes, I approve
b) No, I do not approve
c) I am not sure
Question Five: Do you approve of an investigation into the attacks of September 11, 2001?
Background: On September 11th, 2001, four commercial airliners were hijacked by terrorists. Two were flown into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, causing the Towers to collapse. A third was piloted into the Pentagon in Washington DC, and a fourth crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. Close to 3,000 people perished in these attacks. In the nearly 500 days since, little has come to light regarding how American intelligence agencies failed to perceive the threat. None of the perpetrators who planned the attacks have been apprehended, including the mastermind, Osama bin Laden. The manner in which these terrorists were funded has likewise gone unexplored, as have many other pressing questions. A thorough investigation will serve to reveal the information behind these questions and take a large step towards ensuring that such an attack can never happen again.
a) Yes, I approve of a 9/11 investigation
b) No, I do not approve of a 9/11 investigation
c) I am not sure
Question Six: Did you know that the 'Total Information Awareness' database, under the stewardship of Admiral Poindexter and the Department of Defense, is an integral part of the new Homeland Security legislation, and will begin mining for data soon?
a) Yes, I knew that
b) No, I did not know that
[Note from Kriselda: How soon "soon" is is unclear. Some reports I'm aware of have implied that "soon" means within the next few months, probably less than a year. Others have indicated that the project it still in deveopment and that it will probably be a year or more before they actually have it available to start analyzing all the data of our lives.]
Question Seven: Did you know that the Eli Lilly Pharmaceutical Corporation was granted immunity from lawsuit and liability regarding the autism allegations in the new Homeland Security legislation, because they are under contract to produce bioweapons vaccines for the federal government?
a) Yes, I knew that
b) No, I did not know that
Question Eight: Did you know that the Freedom of Information Act has been severely curtailed by the new Homeland Security legislation, because public data on the actions of federal agencies is now considered a "potential security weakness?"
a) Yes, I knew that
b) No, I did not know that
Question Nine: Did you know that, thanks to new restrictions on the Freedom of Information Act which will be decided upon on a case by case basis by the same department that manages the Total Information Awareness database, an effective investigation into what happened on September 11th, 2001 is now a practical impossibility?
a) Yes, I knew that
b) No, I did not know that
[Note from Kriselda: I consider this to be a bit of an overstatement, though I have no doubt that the FOIA restrictions will make investigating 9/11 much more difficult than it might have been otherwise (which, I'm sure, is no accident - Bush has been against this investigation since the attacks happened), but if the right people are investigating with the intent to actually find out what happened and how we might prevent it, I do think it could be largely successful. Those are some pretty big "ifs", though...]
Question Ten: Do you approve of the new Homeland Security Department, signed into law by President Bush?
a) Yes, I approve
b) No, I do not approve
c) I am not sure
© : t r u t h o u t 2002
I was going through and getting caught up on my favourite blogs today and came across Hugh's entry for World AIDS day at Standing Room Only. I don't really have anything to say about it, except just go read it.
The latest issue of Virtual Occoquan is up and ready for reading - be sure to check it out, too...
I got to reading Jan's comments at Secular Blasphemy about "Lisa Guernsey's NYT article on blogging, which emphasised (groan) gender differences in blogging..." After reading the aricle and her response to some of the feedback she'd gotten, I had to leave her a few of my own thoughts. Since my reply got kind of long, and has a few points I (at least) think are relevant, I decided to go ahead and post it here as well:
In my experience, the difference between male and female bloggers really isn't all that great. Just in the Salon blog community, I've found a large number of female bloggers that I read regularly, as well as many by men that I enjoy just as much. In most cases, however, if the authors had "gender neutral" names, or didn't make reference to their gender in their writing, I honestly wouldn't be able to tell.
Blogging is one of the growing number of areas in which gender, race, and - to a great extent, even socio-economic status - aren't a barrier to success or popularity. Anyone who has access to a computer can find free blogging software and free blog hosting - even a homeless person who is able to use a library computer could maintain a blog if s/he so choose.
In terms of success as demonstrated by linking, I seriously doubt most people choose their links based on the gender of the author. I suspect that it is far more common for people to link to other blogs that they think their readers will enjoy, and which offer information or views at least somewhat similar to their own.
Blogs about politics will be more likely to link to other blogs about politics than they blogs about cooking or everyday life, and vice versa. If more men then women are writing about politics, then it is likely that men writing political blogs are more likely to link to other men writing about political blogs. That's not discrimination, and its not an attempt to keep women's blogs from being read.
I do think there are differences between male and female bloggers, but I don't think that it's a negative difference, nor do I think that women bloggers are somehow under-represented or under-appreciated. There's no denying that men and women, in general, do tend to gravitate towards different areas of interest, and that will naturally be reflected in some of the writing. Its really no different than the fact that more romance novels are written by women than by men, or that more spy/thriller novels are written by men than by women.
Finally, in a special concession to The Raven, I've removed the "iMood" indicator from different strings. It's still on my other sites, so if you actually care what kind of mood I'm in, and want to check on it, you can just click on any of the sites listed under "Things I Write" in the navigation bar. I realize this is a matter of pressing importance to everyone and just wanted to keep you all up to date. :)
I may be a bit scarce for the next few days - an MMORPG that I play is coming out with a new expansion pack tomorrow and I have a feeling I'm going to be visiting there quite a bit :)
You know, hacking and slashing animated bad guys can be very therapeutic after reading the day's news....
Here are a few links to stories about AIDS that caught my interst as I was looking for information to post today for World AIDS Day. Most of these links are for groups or resources in and around the state of Kansas, and Kansas City in particular, but the information they offer can still be useful to others as well.
-=<*>=-
An excellent, extensive project that the Kansas City Star did in 2000 on AIDS among Priests - a group not often thought of as even being at risk for AIDS. The project consists of several stories that were serialized over a period of three days, as well as several follow-up stories that were published later. The project looks at the stigma of being a priest with AIDS, how the church's training and views on sexuality and the priesthood can tragically complicate matters.
-=<*>=-
Poll: Britons Ignorant, Complacent About HIV/AIDS
Nearly half of Britons think they know very little or not enough about HIV/AIDS, and a poll released Monday showed they are right. A third of 18- to 24-year-olds think there is a cure for HIV, which causes AIDS, nearly one quarter said they could be infected with the deadly virus through kissing, and 1 in 10 people are convinced they can be infected through toilet seats.
The KC Red Cross offeres several educational programs including ones offering basic AIDS information, information specificially geared towards Hispanics or African-Americans, as well as AIDS in the Workplace and teaching young people about protecting themselves from AIDS.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
| E-mail: |  |
AKA: | ThorsWitch |
 | INTP |
 | B7 d++ t+ k++ s+ u- f+ i++ o+ x- e l c- |
 |
    
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| « ? ProChoice Is Not AntiLife # » | ||||||||||
| << | domain-ated | >> | ||||||||||
| << ? domain girls # >> | ||||||||||
| <·· PWA ··> | ||||||||||
| < ? blogs by women # > | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| ‹ # Circle of Shadows ? › | ||||||||||
| <-- ? In MY Opinion # --> | ||||||||||
| « # blogshares ? » | ||||||||||
| « # Scorpio ? » | ||||||||||
| < # Blogrollers ? > | ||||||||||
| < ? six degrees # > | ||||||||||
|
[ <<
?
Verbosity
#
>>
] |
||||||||||
| domain whore | ||||||||||
|
Are you a  ? Domain . Addict # |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
)O(
 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Rate Me on BlogHop.com!
|
Rate me at Eatonweb
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
![[ Registered ]](http://www.differentstrings.info/images/diarist.gif){kind=small}
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Recommended sites |
Please note: The Salon Blog mailing list and web rings are not managed by Salon Magazine, but are specifically for the owners/authors/editors of Salon Blogs. The Salon name is used with permission.
| < £ Salon Bloggers & > |
| Do you own/edit/write a Salon Blog? Join the Salon Bloggers Webring! |
|
|
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.differentstrings.info/images/valid-rss-dylan2.gif "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
|
|
|
![[Blue Ribbon Campaign icon]](http://br.eff.org/br.gif)
