Main

November 05, 2008

Will California's Gay Marriage Ban Force Divorce?

No marriage symbol (as it appears at http://thornsandnails.com/pics/not_marriage2_sm.gif)Proposition 8, a California initiative that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman, has passed.  Because the measure amends the state constitution, it would effectively overrule the decision of the California Supreme Court that banning same-sex marriage is discriminatory.

But this leaves a convoluted side effect which will have a major impact on many Californians and others.

Thousands of same-sex couples married between the court decision in May and the vote on November 4.  What will happen to those couples?

The law will either be interpreted as:

1) Those same-sex couples who are already married can stay married.  But that would leave the dilemma of the state both approving same-sex marriage, and saying it's unconstitutional.

2) The marriages of those already married same-sex couples would be forcibly ended by the government.  That would essentially mean the state would force married couples to divorce.

Neither one of these options is something that conservatives or liberals would fully support.  The effects of the court decision and the vote cannot be ignored, and it will force this issue to stay in the public arena.  Either way, this controversy is far from over.

And is also begs the question: does this mean that the state of California would define the polygamous marriages of most Biblical patriarchs as illegal?

[ Yahoo! ] options

September 10, 2008

Troy Anthony Davis Will Die This Month--Unless....

Troy Anthony DavisTroy Anthony Davis is scheduled to be executed in Georgia on Tuesday, Sept. 23.  He was convicted of killing a cop on the testimony of nine witnesses with no physical evidence.  Davis says he's innocent, and seven of the nine witnesses have since recanted their testimony.  Some said they were pushed to testify by the police; some said they believe one of the two remaining witnesses who still blames Davis actually did the killing.

So why hasn't Troy Davis simply gotten a new trial?  It's because of a misguided 1996 Newt Gingrich era law that makes it much more difficult for a person convicted of a capital crime to appeal.  Because of that law, evidence in Davis' support can't even be seen by the court.

But it will be seen on Friday, Sept. 12, by the Georgia Department of Pardons and Paroles.  The department will decide if Troy Anthony Davis should be executed.

We aren't asking anyone to write the Georgia Department of Pardons and Paroles to declare Davis innocent.  We're simply asking that you ask them to truly consider the evidence.  It's quite easy.  Simply click on the link to the ACLU, which has provided an easy-to-use online form.  If at all possible, please do this by Friday, Sept. 12.  But even if it's after that date, please still do it.

Act now to demand justice and stop the execution of Troy Anthony Davis.

- - - - -

To see all blog entries dealing with Troy Anthony Davis, click on http://www.loveshade.org/blog-mt/mt-search.fcgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=troy+anthony+davis

[ Yahoo! ] options

August 11, 2008

Guantanamo Jury Decision Blow to President Bush

Image found at http://current.com/items/89031306_exams_prove_abuse_torture_in_iraq_gitmo_who_s_gonna_pay"GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba - The Yemeni man convicted at the first Guantanamo war crimes trial will be eligible for release in less than five months after receiving a light sentence from a jury made up of U.S. military officers.

The victory for Salim Hamdan, a former driver for Osama bin Laden, was a rebuke to military prosecutors who portrayed him as a hardened al-Qaida warrior and sought a sentence of 30 years to life in prison."

Rightly or wrongly, "Guantanamo Bay" has become synonymous with prisoner abuse and humiliation.  The Bush Administration backs ill treatment and even torture (see http://loveshade.org/blog/2008/03/waterboarding_president_bush_f.html) of people who are legally innocent.  This decision, that Hamdan got a 5 1/2 sentence after already serving over five years, must be a blow to the administration.

We can hope, as the American Political climate is headed for major changes, that the illusive and sometimes illusionary concept called "justice" can move beyond revenge and torturing the legally innocent.  We hope.

See the article by Mike Melia, Associated Press writer, at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/guantanamo_bin_laden_s_driver

[ Yahoo! ] options

July 27, 2008

Don't Ask, Don't Tell--Gays in the Military

The photograph of Paul Tibbets with his ground crew in front of the Enola Gay is reproduced from Vincent C. Jones, Manhattan: The Army and the Atomic Bomb, United States Army in World War II (Washington: Center of Military History, United States Army, 1988), 535.Allowing homosexuals and bisexuals in the United States military is being examined by Congress for the first time in 15 years.

When Bill Clinton became U.S. president about 16 years ago, one of the first things he wanted to do was to stop the military from discriminating against bisexuals, gays and lesbians.  Under policy at that time, the Pentagon could and did ask recruits their sexual orientation.  This was due to what would now be called homophobia--people were afraid that gays would proposition, sexually molest or even rape them.  (Two or three decades ago, many Americans believed that most sexual molesters were homosexual).

Congress wouldn't go along with Clinton's proposal, but instead made a compromise.  This became known as the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.  If you were lesbian, bisexual or gay, you were supposed to keep your mouth shut about it.  In turn, the Pentagon wouldn't ask you what genitalia you preferred.

It was an odd policy to begin with--it was against the rules for you to have a "non-normal" sexual preference, but it was OK as long as no one found out about it.  Something of an "It's OK as long as you don't get caught" policy.

But the military establishment caught people anyway.  While the Pentagon stopped asking directly, they still investigated.  The number of people kicked out due to their sexual orientation only lessened by about 10 percent, according to Randy Shilts' 1993 book Conduct Unbecoming: Gays & Lesbians in the U.S. Military.

But Congress is now holding a hearing on the policy with what is ironic timing.  Senator Sam Nunn, who was a co-creator of the policy, is being seriously considered as the vice presidential running mate for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who’s had a lot of support from homosexuals.

So what think?  What affect could having Nunn as a running mate have on Obama's campaign?  And should the military be allowed to keep people out due to their sexual orientation?  Is a policy that makes those who want to serve in the military hide their homosexuality or bisexuality fair?

(Alden Loveshade contributed to this)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080723/us_time/revisitingdontaskdonttell
[ Yahoo! ] options

June 17, 2008

Same Sex Marriage Now Legal in California

I heard from Lorien that same-sex couples can now get legally married in California.  I knew the California Supreme Court had ruled that restricting marriage to the opposite sex was unconstitutional on the state level on May 15, but it took until 5:01 p.m. today (June 16) for that decision to stand.  (for a discussion of the May 15 decision, see http://loveshade.org/blog/2008/05/california_may_accept_marriage.html)

California is the second state to do this, and several couples have gotten married there already.

Of course there's protests, calls for changing the law, etc.  There's a California measure coming up for vote in a few months that would specifically ban same-sex marriage.  And because U. S. states recognize marriage as defined by other U. S. states, it puts anti-gay-marriage states in something of a bind.  This will probably beef up the idea of amending the U. S. Constitution to a "one-man, one-woman" marriage amendment.  My friend Alden claims that marriage in the U. S. has never been controlled by the federal government, and this would put even more power in the hands of big wigs in Washington.

So what think?  Should same-sex marriage be legal?  Should the federal government be able to control marriage?  For that matter, should the state government be able to control marriage?  And what about governments of other countries?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080617/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

(members of The Loveshade Family contributed to this report)

[ Yahoo! ] options

May 25, 2008

California May Accept Marriage Based on Love

Lesbian couple (from Queereaster Media Working Group 2006)Marriage has always been the state-recognized union of one man and one woman.  Or such is the assumption some would have us make, even though a look through Christian, Jewish and Muslim scripture would show otherwise.

Now the California Supreme Court has challenged that assumption.  A case was fought on behalf of 14 same-sex couples and by Equality California and our Family Coalition.  They had legal help from several individuals and groups including the ACLU and the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

The result? The court overturned California's ban on same-sex marriage.  Because this case applied to state and not federal law, it can't be appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court.

Where will it go from here?  As Bob Dylan sang, "the answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind."  And as Dylan also sang, "the times they are a changin'."

To learn more, go to http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12141res20050314.html

(Lorien Loveshade contributed to this).

[ Yahoo! ] options

March 08, 2008

Waterboarding: President Bush Favors Torturing the Legally Innocent

The title of this entry may be harsh, but waterboarding is torture according to counterterrorism specialist Malcolm Wrightson Painting of waterboarding at Cambodia's Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum, by former prison inmate Vann Nath. (photo by Jonah Blank)Nance.  Nance taught at the Navy's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) school in California, so is an expert on interrogation and resisting it.  The technique was performed on Nance, who said, "It is an overwhelming experience that induces horror and triggers frantic survival instincts."  It is like drowning, meaning a subject "will say or do anything to make it stop, rendering the information they give nearly useless."

The White House announced that President George W. Bush plans to veto a bill outlawing its use by the CIA (American Central Intelligence Agency).  Strangely, while the CIA can use it the U. S. Military cannot.

According to a report by ABC News, "CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in."  Nance and the officers are professionals who know they're just doing their job, not people who are in terror that they may actually be killed.  But pouring water into the nose and mouth to be inhaled into the lungs can be quite dangerous, and can do lasting psychological and even physical harm.  The two front-running Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have called it torture, as has Republican presidential nominee John McCain.

Even ignoring the fact that America is supposedly a nation that believes you're innocent until proven guilty, there's a great deal of evidence that torture is not an effective interrogation method.  As Nance pointed out, someone being tortured may say anything to get it stopped.  As Americans, do we really believe in torturing legally innocent people in order to get information that's very likely bogus?

The Washington Post interview with Nance is at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/08/AR2007110802150.html, the ABC News article is at http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866 and the Associated Press article on Bush's threatened veto is at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080308/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_torture.

(Look for immediate updates by clicking below; later followups will likely be added as separate entries)

Continue reading "Waterboarding: President Bush Favors Torturing the Legally Innocent" »

[ Yahoo! ] options

March 05, 2008

Dead Musicians vs Their Fans: Copyright Extension

Image of two musicians believed to be past all copyrightThose who know me well know that I'm a bit of a fanatic when it comes to copywritten material.  I believe the biblical "the workman is worthy of his hire," thought I might phrase it in the gender-neutral "the worker is worthy of es hire."  I once complained to leaders of a spiritual congregation that illegally making copies of music being sold by another ministry was stealing.  They responded by asking their congregation for donations to purchase music so that wouldn't be necessary, and received more money for the music ministry than they'd had before.

But my belief applies to the worker, not necessarily to the corporation that wants to own em.  That might be changing in the European Union.

"Charlie McCreevy, the EU's Commissioner for the Internal Market and Services, wants to nearly double the European copyright term in sound recordings - from 50 years to an astounding 95," according to an article posted on the Electronic Frontier Foundation's website.  How many musicians will be around 95 years after they produce their work?

Art is usually meant to be shared.  I suspect that the biggest dream of most beginning musicians is not for some corporation to profit from their work long after they're dead.  Perhaps worse, a corporation can easily hold the rights to an artistic work without publishing it for decades, meaning the artist's creation will almost certainly be forgotten.  If it went into the public domain, it would have a chance to survive.

To learn more about this effort and what you can do, go to http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/02/stop-copyright-term-extension-europe

Women playing on Sambuca (Trigonon), Cithara and Lyre. (copyright free, from vase painting)

(Acknowledgement of bias--I've ran events for, made contributions to, and am friends with people who've worked for Steve Jackson Games.  That company was caught in a suit against the U. S. Secret Service, which was an inspiration for the creation of the EFF.  Some friends of mine were involved in a case that touched on changes made to the law at least partially due to that case.

The image above was found at http://www.felicity.com.au/artwork1.htm which has other copyright free images)

[ Yahoo! ] options

February 29, 2008

Be a True American--Go to Prison

Buster Keaton behind bars (we believe this photo is public domain, but don't know the photographer)"For the first time in U.S. history, more than one of every 100 adults is in jail or prison, according to a new report documenting America's rank as the world's No. 1 incarcerator," wrote David Crary, AP National Writer.  Keep in mind that's the percentage currently incarcerated--it doesn't count all those who are on probation or parole, or those who used to be.

America is number one both by number and, perhaps more critically, percentage.  The 50 states spent a total of more than $49 billion on corrections last year.  With more and more money being spent on corrections, and more and more people being "corrected," we have to ask--is this working?

See the article at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080229/ap_on_re_us/prison_population

[ Yahoo! ] options

February 28, 2008

True Blue American Patriot Terrorists

How the American flag waves (provided by NASA)Danacasso wrote this in response to the reaction to Barack Obama not wearing an American flag pin and to him being seen wearing clothing that was given to him as a gift during a visit to Kenya, his late father's homeland.  (Links to those stories are at the bottom of this essay). While these incidents may have sparked this angry rant, Danacasso deals with deeper issues that go to the heart of what he feels it means to be an American--and what some people say it means.

 It seems that in order to keep from having your loyalty as a true-blue patriot in the U.S.A. from coming under the scrutiny of the microscope-especially if you are running for some public office-and found flawed, then there are certain kinds of requirements you must meet or the next thing you know, you'll be facing a firing squad.

You have to dress a certain way; not necessarily a suit and tie, but in a way that is acceptable for where you live and work. This includes a sense of fashion that does not send old people into cardiac arrest from just one glance.

You must always display and salute the flag, know the entire Star Spangled Banner-and what inspired it, who said, "Father, I cannot tell a lie", and how to field strip and clean an M-16 and reassemble it in five minutes, blindfolded.

It's good if you're Caucasian, male, affluent, conservative, and not some kind of sexual pervert. (Good luck on that last one.)

And it's very helpful to be a God-fearing, Protestant, born-again Christian.

And you must know American history.

No, not that American history, but the kind that says America is a progressive, noble, peaceful, protective, non-exploitative nation that never engages in any dirty deeds.

Continue reading "True Blue American Patriot Terrorists" »

[ Yahoo! ] options

February 18, 2008

Are You Too Old for Justice?

U. S. Supreme Court (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)"There is only one anti-bias law — the one against discrimination based on age — that would cover all nine Supreme Court justices, if such laws applied to them,"  according to Mark Sherman, Associated Press writer.

The United States Supreme Court will be reviewing five cases of age discrimination this term.  Ironically, the justices themselves are immune--their positions are for life.

 Ageism, or discrimination based on age, is one of the few forms of discrimination that is still commonly accepted in America, and in much of the world.  Any time a person is treated differently strictly on the basis of age (whether said to be too old or too young), it's ageism.

You can read the article at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080217/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_older_workers and see our own philosophy in regard to ageism and other anti-person issues at http://www.loveshade.org/5bb/

(Thanks to Danacasso for pointing the article out to us)

[ Yahoo! ] options

February 09, 2008

Popularity of George W. Bush and Congress in the Toilet

U.S. President George W. Bush in a photo op. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais) "Bush reached his lowest approval rating in The Associated Press-Ipsos poll on Friday as only 30 percent said they like the job he is doing, including an all-time low in his support by Republicans. Congress' approval fell to just 22 percent, equaling its poorest grade in the survey. Both marks dropped by 4 percentage points since early January."  That's from an article by Alan Fram, AP writer.

Many Americans are no longer happy with the War In Iraq, a war that began when that nation refused to let foreigners swarm their country with the right to search any building they wanted to.  If someone told the American government, "We won't attack you if you let us search every government office, business, home, etc. without a warrant," do you think Americans would have agreed?  There never was any evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, but we went in anyway, and have been in chaos ever since.

And people are getting increasingly worried about the "R word," recession, as indicated by that term moving way up in online searches and by surveys.

There's two major things that help a president's popularity and chances of getting re-elected: fears of threats from outside the country, and a booming economy within.  With the constitutional two-term limit, President Bush can't get re-elected president.  But people's opinion of the presidential administration reflect on other candidates in the same party.  But with people strongly disliking the congress as well, what does this bode for the nation?

(And by the way, isn't it ironic that America does has Weapons of Mass Destruction).

Read the article at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080208/ap_on_go_ot/bush_congress_ap_poll

[ Yahoo! ] options

November 21, 2007

Was a Former White House Press Secretary Made to Lie?

Scott McClellan (AP photo by Ron Edmonds)Did President George W. Bush, Vice President Cheney, and others including Bush's longtime adviser Karl Rove deceive a White House Press secretary into lying for them?  Former Press Secretary Scott McClellan claims they did.

The issue involves the leak of the identity of a CIA operative.  President Bush has promised that anyone found to have been involved would be fired.  But when it was publicly disclosed that some of his top advisers were responsible, the president who won't admit his mistakes changed his mind.  According to McClellan, the president and vice president knew the truth before the president made his original statement.  Is this yet another deception of the Bush Administration?

McClellan's book, "What Happened," is due to appear until April 2008, and details have been withheld.  To learn a little more, see the article at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071121/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_mcclellan

[ Yahoo! ] options

November 06, 2007

Does Abstinence-Only Education Stop Teen Pregnancy?

Pregnant teen (from www.parentsbehavingbadly.com)Once again, Texas has the highest teen birth rate of any state in the United States.  Interestingly, Texas has a policy of denying contraceptives without parental consent and strongly promotes abstinence-only sex education in public schools.

By contrast, California, which promotes both teaching abstinence and birth control, and which makes contraception available to teens without parental consent, has a much lower teen birth rate.

From 1991 to 2004, the nation's teen birth rate dropped by a third.  Texas only dropped by 19 percent, while California dropped by 47 percent, according to the non-profit group Child Trends.  (California and Texas are respectively the first and second most populous U. S. states).

Certainly there are other factors involved--micro or sub cultures, wealth vs. poverty, etc.  But the numbers certainly don't support the idea that abstinence-only education stops teenagers from having sex.

See a Dallas Morning News article about this at http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/110507dnmetteenbirths.35daddb.html

[ Yahoo! ] options

October 19, 2007

Bush Fights Against Children Getting Health Care

After the U. S. Congress approved a bill to fund health care for children in low-income family, President George W. Bush vetoed it.  It was only his fourth veto during his almost seven years in office, showing it's something he's very strongly against.

The SCHIP measure had bi-partisan support.  The Senate approved it with enough votes to override the veto, but an attempt in the House of Representatives failed on Oct. 18, 2007.

Now, they're talking about a compromise.  Meanwhile, children who need medical attention may not be getting it.  Bush's primary argument has been that helping low-income children won't leave funds for poor children.  Meanwhile, the average American taxpayer has spent thousands of dollars to fund the military and its War in Iraq, which has resulted in chaos and the deaths and financial ruin of a great number of people.

But Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, said those pushing for the coverage might consider a compromise. "As long as the bottom line is that 10 million children are covered.  That's nonnegotiable."

Read an article about this at the Chicago Tribune site at http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/health/chi-kidshealth19oct19,1,4284377.story

For links and comments on the history of this bill, see http://loveshade.org/blog/2007/09/bush_plans_to_veto_kids_health.html#more

Continue reading "Bush Fights Against Children Getting Health Care" »

[ Yahoo! ] options

September 28, 2007

Support American Breastfeeding Rights with H. R. 2236

Beautiful breast feeding photo from www.sxc.huDo you want to support breast feeding? There's a bill in the United States Congress called H.R. 2236 to do just that!

The bill's purpose is "To amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect breastfeeding by new mothers; to provide for a performance standard for breast pumps; and to provide tax incentives to encourage breastfeeding."

Breastfeeding is the most natural and beautiful thing in the world. But some people want to stop it! There is nothing wrong with the breast and using it for what it was created for.

The bill is at

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2236:   

You can find your representive and write them in support at

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Also see a lawsuit about it at http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-09-12-breast-feeding-lawsuit_N.htmThis is from Women's Health Action Trust

[ Yahoo! ] options

September 22, 2007

Bush plans to veto kids' health care

President Bush at the James Brady Press Briefing Room in the White House in Washington Thursday, Sept. 20, 2007. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak) U. S. President George W. Bush threatens to veto a bill that would extend funding for health care for children in low income families.  The families are above the level allowed by Medicaid, but are too poor to afford private insurance.  

"Members of Congress are risking health coverage for poor children purely to make a political point," said Bush.

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell countered, "The administration has tried to turn this into a partisan issue and has threatened to veto. The health of our children is far too important for partisan politics as usual."

Without approval of the measure, the Children's Health Insurance Program will expire on Sept. 30.  The measure has overwhelming support among Democrats, and has support among Republicans as well.

Read the article at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070922/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

For current updates after Oct. 18, 2007 see  http://loveshade.org/blog/2007/10/bush_fights_against_children_g.html

For the history from Oct. 3 to Oct. 13, 2007, see below:

Continue reading "Bush plans to veto kids' health care" »

[ Yahoo! ] options

August 13, 2007

President Bush will Lose His Brain

U. S. President George W. Bush, left, puts his arm around Karl Rove. (AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari) Karl Rove, American President George W. Bush's advisor since before Bush ran for governor of Texas in 1993, is leaving August 31.

It's hard to overemphasize the importance of this move to the Bush Administration, and by extension to America and ultimately to any nation in the world. There's little doubt that Rove has been the primary architect of the Bush presidency. He is frequently referred to by the White House press corps as "Bush's Brain." There's even a book out by that name. Rove has been called the most powerful non-elected man in current American politics, possibly in all of America's history.

An example of how important Rove is to Bush is likely inadvertently shown in the article linked to below. When a member of the presidential cabinet leaves, a major news service article begins with something like, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced today that...." The person's position is almost invariably listed in the first paragraph. In this article, Rove's title of deputy White House chief of staff isn't mentioned until paragraph 16 (that's as of this writing--these articles are sometimes rewritten). What is emphasized is his importance to Bush.

Personally, I've long seen Rove, who's known Bush since both of them were in their 20s, as Bush's brain. Since before Bush was elected president, I've told people to look at his eyes. When he's discussing politics, he wears a look of, "Am I saying this right?" Contrast that to his face as he discusses sports with bright eyes and a confident and knowing smile. I believe Bush knows sports; I don't believe he understands politics.

It's hard to tell what effect Rove's leaving will have on the last 1 1/2 years of Bush's lame-duck presidential administration, and on Bush himself. Without his primary advisor, who or what will fill the vacuum?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070813/ap_on_go_pr_wh/rove_resigning

Another question created by the impending departure is, will Rove be more influential after he leaves the White House?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-08-13-rove-legacy_N.htm?csp=1&POE=click-refer

[ Yahoo! ] options

August 03, 2007

Separation of Powers: FBI vs. Supreme Court

FBI agents load evidence in the case against U. S. Representaive William Jefferson into a minivan on May 21, 2006 (AP photo by Lauren Victoria Burke)"'Today's opinion underscores the fact that the Department of Justice is required to follow the law, and that it is bound to abide by the Constitution,' defense attorney Robert Trout, said, promising more legal challenges to 'overreaching by the government in this case.'"

The case is that against U.S. Rep. William Jefferson, who has been accused of accepting $100,000 as a bribe from a telecommunications businessman.  But the issue the Supreme Court dealt with was whether or not the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which is part of the Department of Justice, violated the constitutional separation of the executive and legislative branch in the way it seized and examined legislative records.

The separation of power among the executive branch (president and vice president), legislative (House of Representatives and Senate) and the judicial branch (headed by the U. S. Supreme Court) is a fundamental part of the Constitution of the United States of America.  The system was designed to prevent one group or person from taking control of the country.

Ironically, the FBI's actions were condemned by both liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans, and supported by both liberals and conservatives.

To read the article by AP reporter Matt Apuzzo, go to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070803/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/raid_on_congress

[ Yahoo! ] options

July 28, 2007

Does Illegal Immigration Equal Breaking and Entering?

From eyeranian.netDanacasso wrote this in response to a forwarded email that claimed it was a letter written by a woman and was published in an editorial column.  The forward compared immigrants entering American from Mexico without legal permission to someone breaking into an American's house.  It said in both cases the person entered illegally, but said because they were helping (cleaning and such), they must be allowed to stay.  My own thoughts are that entering public America (which Mexican citizens can do legally--they just can't stay for years without permission) and breaking into a private residence are not all the same thing.  But Danacasso brings out some excellent points that go well beyond the breakdown of an analogy. 

-- Alden Loveshade

 

Just some thoughts.

So, now an analogy of breaking and entering is being used. It could have been clever but this particular author simply isn't.

But, let's look at a few things.

Whose house was broken into in the first place?

Last I recall, much of the Americas were already well populated before we whites got here. We're pretty much the original illegal immigrants to America.

Of course, there used to be this thing that humans used to do for thousands of years, before the first civilizations. They wandered into new lands. Sometimes someone else was already there. Other times not.

After the civilizations began to grow, so did this practice. Nations would send masses of their own citizens with the government's blessing or curse to new lands and they would call it "colonization" or "empire-building." After the founding of the United States, a new term was coined in their place: "Manifest Destiny." Others use more direct words, like "invasion" and "conquest". In fact, you could say that Iraq is such a case.

Continue reading "Does Illegal Immigration Equal Breaking and Entering?" »

[ Yahoo! ] options

March 10, 2007

FBI Admits Spying on Us--and Maybe on You

FBI Director Robert Mueller (AP Photo by Susan Walsh)"The nation's top two law enforcement officials acknowledged Friday the FBI broke the law to secretly pry out personal information about Americans."  This is from a 9 March 2007 article written by Lara Jakes Jordan of the Associated Press.  Jordan also writes, "Attorney General Alberto Gonzales left open the possibility of pursuing criminal charges against FBI agents or lawyers who improperly used the USA Patriot Act in pursuit of suspected terrorists and spies."

There's also an article published the same day by James Vicini of Reuters.  "The FBI abused its power by illegally or improperly obtaining telephone, financial and other secret records in investigations of terrorism or espionage suspects, the U.S. Justice Department's inspector general said on Friday."

We have something of a personal interest in this, as some of our friends and members were among those spied on.  We warned that this type of thing had begun way back in various writings including the 1 December 2001 article Stripping Away American Freedom: A Call to Action which you can read at http://discordia.loveshade.org/xtra/freedomstrip.html

The Vicini article is at http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070309/pl_nm/fbi_patriotact_errors_dc and the Jordan article is at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/national_security_letters

Don't let your representatives simply sweep this under the rug, or blame it all on a few agents or assistants who were following orders from someone higher up.

Personally, we suggest you consider supporting groups who fight for freedom such as the ACLU at http://www.aclu.org or http://www.aclu.org/safefree/resources/17119pub20020920.html  The fight for freedom is, as always, right now.

[ Yahoo! ] options

January 30, 2007

Sexism in Schools: Separate but Equal?

All girls classroom at Arrowhead High School (Yahoo! News Photo)In 1892, Horner Plessy, a "colored" shoemaker, was locked up in jail for sitting in the "White" car of the East Louisiana Railroad.  With a series of failed appeals, the Plessy v. Ferguson case of 1896 established that the principle "separate but equal" was legally valid in the United States of America.

It wasn't until 1952, over half a century later in Brown v. Board of Education, that the court finally decided that separate but equal was inheritantly inequal.

Now, with a twist it's happening all over again, only this time in reverse.  It's been decided that "separate but equal" is fair, only this time it's not "white" v. "colored," it's "boys" vs. "girls."  Public schools can now receive federal funding for same-sex classes, and even same-sex schools.  It's not just for physical and sexual education anymore.

Is this a wise policy decision, or just sexism?

You can read the story, which Danacasso pointed out to us, at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070125/ap_on_re_us/same_sex_schools

[ Yahoo! ] options

December 01, 2006

Malachi Ritscher: Burn to Death for Peace

Malachi

On Friday, November 3 2006, a musician and anti-war activist stopped near a 25-foot-tall sculpture called "Flame of the Millennium," and set his gasoline-soaked body on fire.  Even though this happened near the Kennedy Expressway of Chicago, his death received little media attention, and he wasn't even identified until five days later.

But he's being recognized now.  His death wasn't just a suicide, it was a political protest against corruption, cruelty, and what he perceived as murder by the American government and, by extension, the American people.  Ritscher felt the guilt, and wrote that he could no longer live with it.  Some view him as a matyr for peace like the Buddhist priests who immolated themselves in protest against the war in Viet Nam, and some as a seriously mental ill man who died without cause.

But the Mission Statement he left behind makes some powerful and controversial points about war, greed and corruption, and America's part in it.  You can read it below.

Continue reading "Malachi Ritscher: Burn to Death for Peace" »

[ Yahoo! ] options

November 29, 2006

Judge strikes down Bush on terror groups

President Bushs with Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff"A federal judge struck down President Bush's authority to designate groups as terrorists, saying his post-Sept. 11 executive order was unconstitutionally vague, according to a ruling released Tuesday.

"The Humanitarian Law Project had challenged Bush's order, which blocked all the assets of groups or individuals he named as 'specially designated global terrorists' after the 2001 terrorist attacks.

"'This law gave the president unfettered authority to create blacklists,' said David Cole, a lawyer for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Constitutional Rights that represented the group. 'It was reminiscent of the McCarthy era.'"

See the whole article by Linda Deutsch HERE

[ Yahoo! ] options

September 20, 2006

Not Every Suspect is a Terrorist--Just Ask Him

"As Congress weighs how to treat and try suspected terrorists, it should consider the story of Maher Arar, a Canadian Muslim.

"His case is a textbook example of what can go wrong, and why Americans should be leery of embracing the harsh tactics President Bush wants applied to terror suspects."

Arar was arrested, sent to another country where he was confined for about a year, beaten, and made a confession to something he couldn't possibly have done.  Torture is not only cruel and inhumane, it's ineffective.  The Spanish Inquisition used those methods, and terrified many into making false confessions.  Will it help our "war against terror" to use cruel methods that are likely to get us completely inaccurate information?

Read Maher Arar's story at http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060920/cm_usatoday/everysuspectisnotaterroristjustaskhim

[ Yahoo! ] options

September 07, 2006

The Paradoxes of the Bush Presidency

President George W. Bush"I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening...."  George W. Bush (2000)

Is Bush working to prevent wars, and is he against using U. S. troops as "nation builders?"  Even a casual reading of the news will say otherwise.

Pat M. Holt, former chief of staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, makes some excellent points on this and other paradoxes of the Bush administration, including America's fight against democracy, at http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0907/p09s01-coop.html

[ Yahoo! ] options

Secret Prisons, Secret Interrogration Methods--Freedom?

President George W. BushUnited States President George W. Bush finally admitted that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been holding people in secret prisons and using secret interrogation methods.  This is supposedly a good thing, something to "keep America safe."

I remember being taught about countries that held people in secret prisons and used secret interrogation methods for the "good of the country."  But those were bad countries, whereas America is good.  Right?

Continue reading "Secret Prisons, Secret Interrogration Methods--Freedom?" »

[ Yahoo! ] options

August 21, 2006

Republican Party Has Lost Its Way

United States Senator Chuck Hagel"Where is the fiscal responsibility of the party I joined in '68? Where is the international engagement of the party I joined — fair, free trade, individual responsibility, not building a bigger government, but building a smaller government?"  Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), R-Neb, asked that question, according to the article "Sen. Hagel says GOP has lost its way" by Associated Press writer Will Lester.

It's a good question--what did happen to the Republican Party, the Grand Old Party, of 1968?

Continue reading "Republican Party Has Lost Its Way" »

[ Yahoo! ]