Items of Note

$12.95 get's you salvation and free admission to the song and dance theater

2006-02-11T13:54:00.000-05:00

LIVE! RUDE! GIRL!
Welcome to Florida's biblical theme park
by Neva Chonin
San Fransisco Chronicle
Sunday, January 15, 2006
(Note: This column was published on SFGate on Feb. 9, 2001.)

Heaven on Earth
News: When theme parks get religion
Mother Jones
December/January 2006

City of Revelation Theme Park
According to the Mother Jones Article, this theme park is up and running and features an "authentic Jewish Wedding." If so, the website is horribly out of date.

The Holy Land Experience
According to Chonin's article, this theme park was master minded and created by park founder Marvin Rosenthal.

Chonin says:
"A few fortunate visitors might experience the added attraction of seeing authentic members of the...Jewish Defense League protesting outside the gates, sans robes and special effects. It seems the JDL suspects Rosenthal, a Baptist minister who was born Jewish and now heads the Orlando ministry Zion's Hope, hatched Holy Land as a nefarious scheme to convert Jews to evangelical Christianity."

Why do people think that taking their philosophy and religion and turning it into plastic keychains and life-sized cosumed characters is a method of 'teaching' and 'immersing people in the experience' and 'spreading the word? wht part of rollar coaster rides and cotton candy brings a person closer to god or nirvana or enlightenment or simple trust in a higher power that might lead to a kind of relaxed happiness?

I guess the jokes about the Mouse God that is workshid in Florida must be true, because the Christians are awfully determined to imitate his method reaching out and making converts (not to mention a little cash) from all over the country.

Better a nursing home than babysitting

2006-02-08T07:34:00.000-05:00

Born to Serve: The State of Old Women and Widows in India
By Priya Verma
Off Our Backs
Vol. 35, no 9/10
Sept-Oct 2005

Articles like this one always set my instincts on point. Off Our Backs can be an angry and in your face magazine. There are good articles, and some effective coverage of conferences and news, but this is interspersed with articles and essays whose overall tone is one of women’s anger and proof that women should be angry.

While there is plenty for women to be angry about, I ran across several articles that seemed more like propaganda then analysis or well thought out opinion. This article did not strike me as propagandistic, but it is a harsh criticism of traditional Indian culture.

I have never lived in India and I have never known anyone from India outside of academic and professional circles. Therefore, I have no real experience or knowledge to determine whether this article is on target or not.

Having said that, the reasons for my concern are the women-in-India-have-the-worst-possible-lives tone of the piece. While Widow houses sound decidedly horrible, and the tradition of burning a living woman on the same funeral pyre as her deceased husband is something I simply cannot understand (having no knowledge of or contact with the culture), the analysis of the lives of old women leaves me with the desire to ask an old woman from (or in) India.

The integration of old women into the family is described as ‘exploitive’ because they provide childcare and physical labor for their children and grandchildren. Verma insists that women are unwilling to leave Widow Houses (where they are required to beg and prostitute themselves in order to survive) because each of them is “free to live her own life,” while living with her family “obliterates her identity and ordains for her a kind of social death.” Verma then ends by stating that all of this must be fixed through government welfare programs.

Plenty of people in this country (and others) rely upon grandparents to help out with the childrearing. Many do it because the parents are unable to handle it themselves (due to time constraints and other commitments), can’t afford to pay for childcare, or prefer to trust the care of their children to family members. More than one grandparent that I have known has not only done this willingly, they have offered to do it more often because they want to see their grandchildren. To suggest that a woman is forced to care for her grandchildren, and that the act is a form of drudgery and enslavement, is both extreme and offensive.

There is a difference between being a part of the family, helping out with the day-to-day workings of that family, having your needs met through your family, and being forced into an abusive slave-like existence. Is Verma so offended by the idea of childcare and housework that she is appalled that women past childbearing age would be forced to endure involvement in such activities?

While I admit that her point about women not being given any kind of choice within these situations is difficult to hear and difficult to live with, but the reality of life is that all people (male and female) live in the exact same situation. It’s neither realistic nor admirable to suggest that a person has a right to being catered to and served and given the means to do anything they please. We all have our struggles and caring for a family is one of the most difficult, complicated, economically challenging, and rewarding experiences of any person’s life. Why is the incorporation of the grandparents into this life supposed to be so offensive while shuttling them off to nursing homes and providing them welfare checks is such an improvement?

Personally, I am very much of the opinion that Western culture needs to learn from Indian culture, not the other way around. Nursing homes and day care centers are income generating businesses that have become the standard when, ideally, they should be the last resort or the occasional fill-in when other options simply aren’t available.

Granted there are, and always will be, people who abuse a tradition or a system, but the possibility of abuse does not, necessarily, prove that a tradition is without value or need.

I’m already wearing purple…

2006-02-08T07:33:00.001-05:00

Practicing for Age: Embracing the Old Woman Within
By Roxanne Friedenfels
Off Our Backs
Vol. 35, no 9/10
Sept-Oct 2005

Over the Hill and Out of Sight
By Janice Keaffaber
Off Our Backs
Vol. 35, no 9/10
Sept-Oct 2005

Thoughts of a Fifty-Nine Year Old Feminist
By Carol Anne Douglas
Off Our Backs
Vol. 35, no 9/10
Sept-Oct 2005

Recently I decided to make a very large decision – I’m going to cut my hair. This isn’t about style or letting go of what has grown to be reasonably long, it’s about age. I started going gray, I have been steadily getting more and more gray over time, I have been overly focused on (and convinced of) getting old, and it’s time to just get over it. So, in about 2 months I’m going to have all of the dyed hair cut off of my head, leaving nothing but what is growing there naturally, and I’m going to leave it that way for a minimum of one year. This means that I will be cutting my hair shorter than it has ever been at any time in my life (the reason why I’m waiting a few months – going bald is a little more than I can handle at this point), and I will be looking at myself with no-longer-nearly-black hair.

It’s going to take some getting used to, but it’s something I have recently realized I need to do.

Friedenfels mentions the same thing occurring in her life – but made the decision to refrain from dying it or doing anything to change the fact that her hair is also thinning out. She’s focused on embracing the process of growing old. Truthfully, this is a process and an honor that is dangerously distant from the society I live in. I am told that we should be grateful for every day we are given. There is no guarantee that you will live through the next moment, much less then next decade, so thank whatever powers you believe in and be grateful for what you’ve been given. If someone reaches a point where they’ve put together many decades worth of days, then they’ve been given something exceptional. They’ve survived something that will, eventually, kill us all: time.

So, why are we so obsessed with youth? Why are we so angry with age and/or the old? Why is there this reaction of failure to someone who has done something that you may not even come close to accomplishing?

Keaffaber describes reactions people have to her because of her age – refusing to acknowledge her existence in a clothing store, pretending she’s not there at a checkout counter, finding herself to old for protests and trainings because they were for ‘youth,’ and newspapers taking photographs that clearly displayed herself and other women over 50 in a crowd of other protesters while providing a caption stating that “young activists protest…”

It’s like we become more and more invisible the older we get.

It’s also strangely important that things like activism be constantly focused on ‘youth.’ Sometimes I notice a trend (even among activists themselves) to present everything as though it were a special event catered to the young and spirited. As though activism and concern about issues in this country and abroad were something that people grow out of – a phase that young adults go through while they’re still learning about how the ‘real world’ works:
They’re to young to really understand, but with time they’ll come around. Humor them; it’s a good learning experience. They can build leadership skills and then apply them to life when they’re done playing around. The reason there are no middle aged or old or retired people profiled is because everyone knows that the people who actually grew up and matured are no longer doing those things. If someone is still involved, they clearly have not let go of their younger days and taken on real responsibilities…Rather interesting twist of perspective, isn’t it? After all, if the entire age span of a community were to be involved, then the issue at hand might have more validity and importance then the powers-that-be would like it to have. If it’s just the kids and their chaperones (read: the invisible non-youths in the center of the picture) then it’s really nothing more than an elaborate field trip, is it?

Keaffaber states that she doesn’t want to be a mentor or a font of wisdom or a woman working for the future generations or even wear purple all of the time. She just wants to be herself. Personally, one of the things I simply love about people decades older than me is their ability to cease to care about the opinions of other people – they are what they are and you’re just going to have to deal with it, damn it. Granted, this isn’t every person in a given age range, but it’s something I’m drawn to and one single powerful reason I have for actually looking forward to growing old. The ability to say “At my age, you just don’t worry about it anymore” must be wonderfully freeing.

And, quite frankly, I wear purple right now. I wear a lot of purple. More than I probably should. My room is filled with it and it’s been ‘my color’ for as long as I can remember. Does this now mean something about me and my age and my attitudes about age? Is it akin to men who wear pink (the recent trend of pink-everything notwithstanding)? The trappings that become stereotypically associated with a person, place, position, culture, race, gender, identity, or thing have a cascading affect on the rest of us. Yes, there was a poem stating that part of the glory of growing old is the ability to wear any color, or combination of colors, you very damn well chose. The author chose purple clothes and a red hat, so now the red hat society revels in the spirit of the thing by wearing exactly those things. It’s fun and it’s empowering and there’s nothing wrong with it.

It also has nothing to do with me, or my many years of choices in color coordination, any more than it has to do with Keaffaber’s sense of self or desire to be respected for who she is and not her age.

All of which sounds very feminist and decidedly current: women are invisible, women are judged by what they wear, women are expected to wear certain things, women have no voice in matters of importance, women are expected to fulfill a certain role at certain times and even the press pretends they do not exist because of it, women must fulfill the duties expected of them and all women like them (read: of the same age)…

Yet, all of it gets passed over because the young are the constant center of attention and are often made the center of attention by the very people who need to be heard themselves. How many times have a group of people chosen to take on the role of ‘chaperone’ while attending an activist event/action because letting the young have their chance seemed to much more important?

If you want to be heard, you have to open your mouth.

Also, never forget the fact that people come and people go. Some chose to stay with a cause and others chose to buy into the idea that it was just a phase in their wild and untamed youth. People live long lives and people die young.

Douglas does an excellent job of expressing her concerns about growing older, but really emphasizes her fear of being the last radical feminist of her generation. She doesn’t want to watch all of her friends die and find herself left without people who “understand what I’m thinking.”

Seems like a bit of wallowing self-pitying arrogance to suggest that no one alive could possibly understand you now that all of your friends are gone. Of course, Douglas is talking about fears, not reality, and it’s both valid and important to talk about fears for the very fact that other people feel exactly the same way that you do – including the thought that no one can possibly understand what you are thinking. Strangely enough, that connection based on the conviction that no one understands proves to both persons involved that someone else understands.

It’s one of those mysteries of life.

Ultimately, what I understand Douglas to be saying is that she’s afraid of being alone and helpless. The nursing homes, the slow-killing disease that takes your mind before your body (e.g.: Alzheimer’s), the passing of one close friend and family member after another, and the ever shrinking circle of people who have known you for longer than a few months, or years, or decades. Change is scary, but inescapable solitude is terrifying.

If we are constantly working for future generations, then shouldn’t those generations be growing up around us, and with us, and in our homes and communities and lives? Wouldn’t it seem logical to expect a large network of human beings filling the life of people who have been consistently involved over the years, like a gardener surrounded by flowers? Why does the work result in a barren and empty garden? Why do the efforts to create solidarity and community ultimately result in a collection of cliques that rely solely on themselves while other cliques form around them?

Why does our human connection end with the friends from our youth and in our circle of similarity instead of branching out, both up and down the age range, through the simple act of collaborative action? If we are working together, if we have the same objectives and goals, if we are part of the same community, then why are we so divided?

Ultimately, I have more questions than answers, and I’m simply hoping that cutting my hair and spending a year facing myself, and my age, in the mirror, every day, will help me to understand, if not fully answer, at least some of them.

The Problem with MS

2006-02-08T07:33:00.000-05:00

MS Magazine
The year 2005

If you look through this blog, you’ll notice that there are no articles from MS magazine listed or discussed. The reason for this is because I did not get my last copies of the magazine and, therefore, could not read them. (This blog was started after the first few had been read and passed along to other women.)

MS comes out 4 times a year (and costs far more than it should). However, if you move at anytime during your subscription and fill out the change-of-address from on their website, you will get an interesting email informing you that it takes at least one issue to complete an address change – regardless of when that address is changed in the course of year.

The Nation, Technology Review, and WIRED had no problem changing my address immediately, but MS magazine seems to be unable, or unwilling, to do the same.

I did a little digging on their website and looked over my emails from them again, and realized that MS does not consider itself to be a publication – it’s an association. It’s something that women join so that they can say they are card carrying feminist and have access to all of the inside things that associations provide. Honestly, I can’t tell you if MS provides much in this respect because I never used my membership for anything more than the magazine.

Quite frankly, I am disappointed in MS and the association connected to it. The whole thing is very elitist – never mind the fact that I hate using that word and get my dander up every time I hear someone else use it. At this point there’s a lot of prestige tied up in being published in MS, being interviewed in MS, being mentioned in MS, having your organization or work covered in MS, and otherwise being recognized by the flagship of feminist involvement. Whatever it may have been in the past, it is now a ruler by which women can judge (or value) their involvement in the feminist movement. It is proof that someone else is doing something worth supporting. It is the source of all things feminist and, therefore, read with unquestioning awe of the un-challenged expert.

So, I guess they feel perfectly justified in telling a nobody like me that I will simply have to let go of at least one forth of my annual subscription because I moved. Maybe mail forwarding is something they offer to people who purchase the more expensive membership.

The other half

2006-02-08T07:32:00.000-05:00

Rabbis’ Wives: Then and Now
By Shuly Rubin Schwartz
Lilith
Winter 2005

I have no idea what Rabbi’s wives do (or do not) do. I have no experience with them. However, I do have experience with the wives of various Christian leaders and the secretaries of Catholic Priests (many of whom follow their employer from one congregation to the next).

I’ve heard people talk about the roles women play in many scenarios where the husband is in power, or the leader, or the holder of religious/spiritual…whatever…and she’s brought along for the ride.

I’ve wondered about such things as I’ve watched women present themselves as the wife of the Boss, the Owner, the CEO, the Sergeant, the Politician, the Professor, and the Athlete. And, I myself have been the wife of a man with a high profile job who went to a good number of events she had no interest in because he needed ‘the wife’ (a title we occasionally, jokingly, tossed around) to be there.

It’s a role, just like any other role, and it has its duties and it’s expectations because history and society and the necessities of the particular relationship in question have placed them there. Call me complacent, but I have no strong feelings about the nature of any of these roles, one way or another.

At least, not when the roles are chosen. Actions between consenting adults are their business, not mine. What they choose is what they choose and bless them on their road ahead.

What annoys me is when there are no other options and creating them requires a massive amount of effort, energy, time, and negotiating. But, things that have been created over time are not going to be changed over night, and roles caste in the expectations of society (like ‘the wife’) are not a recent fad-like development in this country or the world.

While I find no reason to be offended by it, also find no reason to accept it as inevitable or the only option. However, I am no longer married (and he is no longer in a high profile job), and my time as ‘the wife’ was spent resenting the role instead of using it or changing it. Granted, I was young and idealistic and less than happy about living where I was living, but I occasionally look back and regret not having the wherewithal to recognize the position I was in and what that really meant (or could mean).

By the same token, I learned from the experience that I am not suited the role of ‘the wife’ at all. It’s not something my personality is going to settle into without loud and angry complaint, so it’s something I will not do again. I’m not unique in this – most people don’t realize how ill suited they are to something until they try it.

Which is what brings me to the one thing that I have always felt-thought about the role of ‘the wife’ – it’s a job. There are things that need to be done, details that need to be handled, people who need to be appeased, situations that need to be organized, and things that have to be addressed by more than one person whenever a position of leadership or power or prestige is being filled. Traditionally this role has been filled by ‘the wife’ because it made the most sense – she’s there, she’s going to be involved in some way (regardless), she already focuses on the things all women/wives focus on in the society in which she lives…it’s something that is/was simply practical when you stop to think about it.

But, that does not mean it’s the only logical possibility. It also does not mean that it’s suited to our current society. If a person is in a position that requires (for whatever reason) showing up to various events with a person on his/her arm (or as a companion of any sort) who will effectively navigate the crowd and the culture and the conversation and the event for whatever reason, then why not hire the position out? People talk disparagingly of escorts because of their association with prostitution, but what about the reality of finding a personality who handles a social situation in a manner that is needed? The person could be male, female, bilingual, smooth, cool, bubbly, sweet, intelligent, streetwise, blunt, argumentative – it could be anything that the event needs and the needs could change from one event to the next, which means the person hired could (logically) change from one event to the next.

Organizing, entertaining, and managing a crowd are talents and skills, and they do not (necessarily) have to be handled by the same person at every event.

Cooking, cleaning, and organizing the physical details of an event or a home are also talents and skills that do not have to be handled by one person, or the same person, at any given time.

Caring for children – same thing.

There’s a lot of talk out there about people taking on the roles most suited to them, instead of assigning roles based on gender, marital status, race, class, and whatever else people might be in the habit of using. What this article got me to thinking about was the reality involved in taking that concept and transforming it from talk into action.

It’s more logical, realistic, and possible than we might think – and the change will occur when we stop theorizing about the possibility and start passing the work around.

Tell me about the women with guns

2006-02-08T07:31:00.000-05:00

Through a Different Lens
Women Bring the News from Israel
By Helen Schary Motro
Lilith
Winter 2005

Women journalists, soldiers, mothers, and residents of Israel and Palestine do their jobs despite patriarchal oppression – that’s one point.

Women journalists are both competent and more inclined to focus on the human aspect’ of the story – that’s another point.

Women journalists are able to interview women, and connect with people, in this region because they are female (women are not allowed to speak to men outside of their immediate family in this region) and they have stories about children and family that they can use to connect with the people they are interviewing – that’s yet another point.

On the one hand I found the discourse on what women journalists tend to cover (as opposed to men) interesting. Why is it that covering the ‘human’ aspect of a story is considered so much ‘less’ an avenue of reporting than counting the number of bombs, or trucks, or soldier, or dead? Isn’t the affect on human lives, due the large and weeping events occurring around them, the whole point?

But, that said, I also found myself wishing the journalists would spend less time talking about being journalists and more time talking about the women they mention in passing. The photograph of the three soldiers watching from the women’s section of the Netzarim synagogue as Torah scrolls are removed from the ark keeps drawing me back to it. Three women, each with an enormous gun slung over her back, a pointy tail down her neck, and matching green military uniforms, are standing close and intently watching something the camera does not show. On the one hand, they aren’t allowed into the main part of the synagogue because they are female. On the other, they are allowed into combat military while women in the US have to protest and fight for the same…privilege?…opportunity?…right?…(I’m really not sure how to describe being allowed to go to the front lines of a war – even if you want to be there).

I want to know more about the women in the uniforms. I want to know more about the settler with the baby in a sling around her neck. The Gaza Strip really isn’t a place I’ve ever wanted to go. Neither is Israel, but that’s more because I’ve never really thought about (and because I’ve always known that it’s one of those exceptionally dangerous places to travel). These photographs make me want to go there and meet those four women.

The article itself was interesting, but not so near as interesting as the photographs. Is it because the photographs don’t have a story connected to them? Would I be as interested if the article detailed their story and their lives? I think I would, but I might be more interested if they followed this story up with that one. Photographic teaser from one article to the next, I guess.

Regardless, I keep looking at those three women, in front of the white wall with the white curtains, standing close, arms around each other’s waists, as though the guns over their shoulders weren’t even there.

Words like swords

2006-02-01T07:56:00.000-05:00

Words Can Hurt
By Karen Propp
Lilith
Winter 2005

This article is about verbal abuse and it's frequency in the jewish community. Until I moved to Philly, I had never lived in (or, to the best of my knowledge, near) a Jewish community, so i really can't comment on what is frequent and what is not. However, it makes some interesting points about abuse.

Verbal abuse is something everyone experiences - particularly if you're female. It seems to be the way girls fight. quite frankly, I've often wished more women would learn how to use their fists on occasion...but that's another topic for another day.

The hard thing about verbal abuse is identifying it. When has someone gone to far? Just like physical abuse, there are times when it's obvious, but there are times when it's not.

Recently I was told by a person I know who is a Psychologist that verbal abuse can 9and will) have the same afect on the human psyche (and the body) as physical abuse. It's a form of trauma that can/will cripple a person just as effectively as a brutal attack or regular beatings.

There's a disconnection and a pointed insult of human worth when verbal assaults are thrown, but there is that difficult to identify aspect of personality. some people will be bruised and broken by the very same interaction that will not bother another person at all.

Identifying the abuse between a couple has to occur between that couple, as the affects are indicated by their relationship and moods and psychological health. between people who are not in an intimate (or familial or work) relationship, there's (usually) the possibility of removing oneself from the interaction altogether (in a work based relationship there are usually options for this that don't occur elsewhere) and it may be a matter of the person recieveing the assault recognizing the effects on themselves and taking the action necessary.

If someone you can walk away from and avoid contact with is brutalizing you physically, would you go back? Why should verbal abuse be any different?

I guess it comes down to society and personal struggles and people learning to see the affects of their own actions - even when those actions are both accepted and expected among their own family.

It's a complicated problem.

Why do I read this?

2006-01-18T08:44:00.000-05:00

http://www.pennyandaggie.com/

Why do I do this to myself? The only person this comic really focuses on is the wicked yet beautiful Penny. I like the character of Aggie, but every time I read this I feel like I'm slowly driving past a horrible car wreck on one of the massively busy highways around Philly.

Rubbernecking the horror that is (was) high school.

Is there something about teenage hormones that makes people inherently evil, or is it something about our society, or the assembly-line-factory-worker-training-inspired set up of schools everwhere? Is it just what happens when you shove that many teens into a small space and force them to deal with only each other a precious few people ouitside of their age range?

Shudder

Every time I look at it I get this sick feeling of memory combined with resignation that nothing has changed over the past few decades. Torture thru talk is the reality of women everywhere, and the vicious basics are still a core portion of the curriculum in our lovely school system.

So, why do i keep reading it?

I guess I just keep wishing that Aggie will come back - I remember her from my own years in Hell High...fondly.

you did what?

2006-01-18T07:55:00.000-05:00

Taiwan breeds green-glowing pigs
By Chris Hogg
BBC News, Hong Kong
1/12/2006

Pigs that glow green at night when a blue light is shone on them.

Pigs that are created by injecting jellyfish genes into embryos and then implanting them into sows.

265 pig embryos were implanted in eight different sows - and only 3 male piglets were born.

They are hoping the pigs will breed more glowing green piglets by mating with normal pigs.

They want the glowing green pigs for genetic research 'casue it's easier to find the glowing green genes injected into OTHER animals.

Many jellyfish are poisonous...deadly in fact.

Which jellyfish did they use? How many artificially inseminated embryos usually survive (without the genetic manipulation)? Does this affect the eating habits or water based needs or skin texture or personality of the pigs?

When do they start injecting human embryos with jellyfish genes? We could have an entirely new (and man-made) race just as green and glowing as any fantasy novel fairy. perhaps they'll even find a way to create pointy ears.

I guess this is proof that human beings (scientists included) like to think of themselves as having god-like powers. The ability to create new and fascinating beings...beings which they will (of course) be able to control.

Silly, silly, human.

Not the anarchy you might expect

2005-12-28T08:20:00.000-05:00

The Dispossessed (Paperback)
by Ursula K. Le Guin
Publisher: Eos
Reprint edition (December 1, 1994)
ISBN: 0061054887

A wonderful novel about worlds far and distant from our own, however, like all good literature, the novel has solid characters and explores philosophies of life and possibilities of experience…not just descriptions of fantastic places and wild (and often violent) adventures.

Gushing praise aside, the most fascinating aspect to this novel was it portrayal (and exploration) of anarchism.

To be perfectly honest, anarchism has never held much interest for me because the people who I’ve known to be involved in it were often angry (or fringe…or just plain lazy) young adults looking for an excuse to break the law or justify bad and destructive behavior. It has also seemed like an excuse to wear black covered in symbols that shock, offend, or annoy the status quo. In short, I have not explored the philosophy because of the personalities and lifestyles of the people (who I myself have met) living it. It just wasn’t a crowd I was impressed by or interested in hanging with.

That said, this novel has me wondering if the philosophy and the youthful expression of it are in conflict with one another (or, merely, being expressed in an overly I’m-on-my-own-and-living-in-a-way-that-my-parents-don’t-approve manner). The anarchist society, and the problems it is facing in this novel, are fascinating both from the perspective of how a truly anarchist society might be formed/lived, and the problems/issues it might settle into after nearly 200 years of practice without intervention from (or even contact with) another form of society.

It has me considering exploring the true meaning of anarchism and it’s origins.

Protection is something you gotta pay for

2005-12-28T08:04:00.000-05:00

Fear Inc
By Evan Ratliff
Wired
12/2005

The jist of this article is as follows:

all sorts of companies, both new and old, are making bucket loads of money off of the government through developing technology and strategy for preventing, addressing, and cleaning up after disasters. The government’s primary interest is terrorists (and, possibly, invasion). One business owner (many are venture capitalists who find funding for scientists and then market their products to the government and private industry) made the point that homeland security is to important to leave to the government.

It struck me as odd that private industry was handling the security of this country and doing it primarily out of necessity and need on the part of the government when (I thought) that was one of the primary reasons government exists.

Are we going to have to start paying these companies directly to get any protection at all?

Random catastrophe? Famous people eating hamburgers? Your phone photos for cash!

2005-12-26T08:21:00.001-05:00

Wanted: Your Low-Res Pics
By Erin Biba
Wired
11/2005

Create an account on http://www.scoopt.com and send any and all pictures (taken with a digital camera or a cell phone, it doesn’t really matter) of significant or newsworthy events that you happen to be lucky enough to witness to your account on the site, and Scoopt will peddle them to worldwide publications. The newspapers, magazines, and online news pays for the pict, and Scoopt splits the cash with you 50-50.

The simplicity of submission and the elimination of the hassle that comes from dealing with publications makes this awfully appealing.

It's ok, the robot didn't die

2005-12-26T08:21:00.000-05:00

The Biotech Crash Test Dummies
By Eilene Zimmerman
Wired
11/2005

Robots are being using to test drugs and chemicals, instead of humans or animals. The robots combine human cells with human cells and various chemicals, and the record the reactions. It’s a good idea that the drug companies like because it’s faster and more efficient than the traditional testing method (while PETA will be happy to hear the number of test animals are dropping, the reason for the drop is money, not an affinity for their cause).

While the robots are interesting, I’m still waiting for that Star Trek examination machine that scans you body and tells the doctor everything that is right and everything that is wrong. I’m looking forward to the day when the annual physical consists of stepping into a machine that returns an amazingly thorough listing of every possible aspect of your body.

You're not healthy I tell you! You're not! You're not! You're not!

2005-12-26T08:19:00.000-05:00

A Disease for Every Pill
By Ray Moynihan and Alan Cassels
The Nation
10/17/2005

The drug companies are spending more money on ads that sell directly to consumers (read: the people the doctors prescribe pills to) and creating descriptions of diseases that don’t even exist. The article focuses on the repackaging and renaming of Prozac for the purpose of selling it to young women for pre-menstrual issues. They’ve given it a name and the symptom are nothing more than the normal mood swings a woman goes through right before she gets her period.

This really isn’t anything new. I’ve seen drug company created questionnaires that are written in such a vague and misleading way that anyone could be said to have the disease in question (why doctors choose to hand these things out to patients, I will never understand), and the diet industry has been making a whole lot of money off of the I’m-ugly fears of young women for decades (if not longer). Addictive diet pills have replaced the purposeful infection with a tapeworm (popular in the Victorian era).

Drug companies are in existence to make money, advertising is in existence to convince people to spend money, drug companies using phrasing and technique to sell things via advertising is nothing more than standard big business practice.

Besides, we are still firmly imbedded ion the better-living-through-chemistry age. Better to take a drug than to address things in your life that might allow you to fix (or, at least, live with) the issue chemical free.

Where’s the money in that?

I saw a comedy routine by Chris Rock where he made the point that “You make your money on the come back.” That is dead-on analysis of the situation, if you ask me. It’s not about addressing ailments, or finding cures, it’s about creating products that people will be tied to for the rest of their lives, thereby pulling in a hefty bottom line.

Kind of makes me wonder how many diseases have actually been researched to the point of a cure, only to have the cure withheld from public announcement or distribution. You can’t sell things to people who aren’t (or don’t believe they are) sick.

Advertising good, privacy bad...understand honey?

2005-12-26T08:18:00.001-05:00

Don’t Call It Spyware
By Annalee Newitz
Wired
12/2005

What it comes down to is this – the largest creator of spyware was making a whole lot of money while, at the same time, angering a whole lot of people. Court cases and lawsuits arrived on their doorstep, so they changed a few tactics and the company name. Yeah! Now the business and legal world is happy and the company (now known as Claria) will sue YOU if they catch you calling their stuff spyware (it’s adware, thankyouverymuch).

The power of money and advertising in this country is astounding. Do you ever take a look at the annual financial concerns for this country (and the world) and find yourself thinking that the true role of U.S. Citizen, on the global scene, is to buy more stuff than anyone else? Never mind the huge extensions of credit or the massively long hours at 1 to 3 jobs, we must spend money to keep everyone else a float!

What better way to keep US Citizens at their nationally designated task then to force advertising in their face, make it illegal to complain about (or, possibly, remove) the unasked for ‘feature,’ and then push ‘click here and buy!’ windows in their face so that they’ll either be pulled away by the allure of pretty things or will accidentally click their way into a new state of ownership.

Man, I'm not just gonna bike down that mountain, I'm gonna bike the Mississippi river. Bet you $20 bucks i can do it!

2005-12-26T08:18:00.000-05:00

Biking the Mississippi
By Michael Erard
Wired
12/2005

Modify a bike, put on top of a boat, hook up paddle wheels to the contraption, and pedal your way downstream. Morgan Simmons was trying to come up with an excuse for his desire to bike his way down the Mississippi with his experimental bike-boat, and is now giving lectures (on the river and the path water takes from New York to the Gulf) and having his picture taken.

Excuses for taking long trips through wilderness and water…damn! I’ve been trying to think of one for years! Hmmm…what do I have around the apartment that can be modified…?

Girls with computers...

2005-12-26T08:16:00.001-05:00

Note: the title of this post is inspired by (just in case you've never heard of it):
Artist/Band: Wynonna Judd
Song: Girls With Guitars
Album: Tell Me Why

She’s Got Code
By Jennifer Gandin
Wired
12/2005

Afra Karim Randhawa is a Pakistani girl with a genius streak. At the age of 9, she became the youngest Microsoft certified professional in the world. Bill Gates wanted to meet her, so they flew her to Redmond, WA, and she proceeded to grill him about the number of women he had working there. According to Afra, there are a lot of women interested in technology in Pakistan and Bill just needs to come to her country and meet them.

Forget Bill. I say we get a whole bunch of women geeks together and go to Pakistan ourselves! Good opportunity for the girls to go over some open source ideas, wouldn’t you say?

I want my paint to clean itself

2005-12-26T08:16:00.000-05:00

Brushes with Greatness
By Monya Baker
Wired
12/2005

Paint that does stuff, like absorb bioterror pathogens (e.g.: anthrax) and crunches them into little bits (as long as they fall on the item/wall covered in the special paint), or sterilizes itself, or heals metal by sensing nicks in the paint and fixing them (no touch up required), or remain cool in super hot temperatures, or simply won’t burn (thereby protecting things like wooden staircases from house fires).

Two thoughts – 1) how will we know if something goes terribly wrong? (read: the sterilized paint on the operating room walls is actually breeding toxins…), and 2) is there something disturbingly wrong about the amount of work we simply aren’t willing to do...or is it just me? Seems like cleaning walks, rebuilding staircases after a devastating fire, and touching up paint are perfectly good jobs to keep our own lazy hands doing.

Good parents invest in possible scientific lifesaving cures for rare diseases that don't have cures...yet

2005-12-26T08:15:00.000-05:00

Should I Bank my Baby’s Cord Blood?
By Clive Thompson
Wired
12/2005

It’s a new market to new parents – guilt them into thinking they’re bad parents if they don’t hundreds (thousands?) of dollars to collect and store the blood from their baby’s umbilical cord. The idea is that stem cell research (never mind the hot political debate surrounding the technology) will, someday, be able to use the cells in the cord blood to save your baby’s life. According to this article, parents with a child already suffering from cancer should do it, everyone else should consider it a luxury item or simply donate the cord blood to a public bank for research purposes.

What is it with commerce in this country? While selling science is nothing new to the history of humankind, taking potentially serious research and turning it into a new-baby gimmick to be touted by wealthy parents who’ve gotten over their $1000 baby carriage is…annoying.

Are the oil reserves half empty or half full?

2005-12-26T08:14:00.000-05:00

Running on Fumes
By Sasha Abramsky
The Nation
10/17/2005

Why $5 Gas is Good for America
By Spencer Reis
Wired
12/2005

The reality of increased gas prices for the blue collar, working class, and poor in remote regions of the country, is an inability to get to the places they have to get to in order to survive – work, school, the store.

The reality of increased gas prices for the world of science is more interest (and, therefore, more funding) for alternative sources of fuel and power.

The thing that stuck out to me the most was the absolute reliance upon gas that the people in the remote California town of Yreka. They were cutting back on food so that they could pay for gas. I have lived in highly remote places with no viable form of public transit. I know that what is described is real because I have lived under those conditions myself, however I am lucky enough to have done so during periods of time where I could (just barely) swing the price of gas on either full or part-time jobs.

This is one of those realities that many people in public office neither think about nor address because they have not experienced it themselves and the people living it have nothing in the way campaign contributions or political power to make their situation of interest.

It’s also something (I guarantee you) that is being celebrated by the oil companies. That kind of importance placed on a product is the kind of customer loyalty (or need) all companies simply drool over. It’s the ultimate power and the ultimate income security. Which means that no one is going to do anything to address the needs of the people in these smaller towns because that will push them to support the continued fight and search for more oil. It’s money in their pocket and soldiers at their frontline. What more could they possibly ask for?

On the other hand, scientists are looking at the situation as a prime opportunity to push for further support of things they have been developing for ages. Some of which have been in use for ages, but have been traditionally undercut by the low cost and easy availability of oil.

In my opinion (if you care to know it) there is neither reason nor benefit for either members of government or managers at oil companies to take this time and find ways to get past it by reducing (or eliminating) our need and reliance on oil. This is one of those situations where the most logical course of action will not be taken until there is absolutely no other possible option. They will push us to the edge and beyond before they stop to think that…maybe…they may have gone to far.

So (again, my opinion), this is an issue that would e best addressed by activists and individuals and basement scientists (and actual working and credentialed scientist, if they could be persuaded to join in). There are other options, and here are a few examples:

1) Reduce the need for a vehicle and transportation. There was a time in history when people lived and worked in their towns. No long commutes, no need for distance travel (save on special occasions or in emergency situations), and supplies brought into the town were a community concern. No one had a Wal-Mart or a fast food chain to instantly supply them with whatever they thought they needed at any time. The development and support of small businesses (most particularly NON tourist trade) providing for the needs of the community (in more than one way) is an excellent place to start.
2) Reduce reliance on outside sources of products and energy. Manu factor (or create by hand) the things everyone needs in town. Identify what is needed to get by (for example: a survey of the town and the foods everyone states are required on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis) and find ways to meet those needs locally, and through bulk purchases that are shipped in.
3) Sustainability. Houses, businesses, and schools that are built to provide heat and air conditioning through the technology found in green architecture (read: solar energy, greenhouses in buildings that provide heat, composting toilets, etc) will reduce the cost of maintaining the building and reduce the reliance on outside sources for things like heating oil. Also, farming practices that purposely work to provide as much as possible to meet the needs of the local community, and the community support of the foods provided by these farms, will reduce the need for outside sources shipping products in, increasing prices, or becoming a necessary (and, therefore, political) presence in a community completely dependent upon them for supplies. Combine that with focusing as much farming as possible on plants and animals native to the area, and the ability to sustain the production will be increased.
4) Biofuel and generators. Find a way to replace the vehicles with diesel, set up a system for creating BioFuel in every home (or with a general depository serviced through recycling bucket style pickups throughout the town) out of discarded vegetable oil (and similar items like corn and soybeans), and help people to identify when they need to drive and when they don’t. The less they rely on outside sources for their diesel, the better.

Now, that’s a lot of change and probably just the beginning. But, what I’m illustrating here is the fact that it’s possible. A determined group of activists with connections in the environmental and sustainability communities would be able to pull together the information, and some work and networking could turn up sources for supplies. As always, finances will come into play, but with the increase in funding for research, a town could (potentially) offer itself up as a ‘research experiment’ managed by the likes of MIT.

Or, they could work out a plan that allows them to make changes slowly, over time, and with the most immediate needs (or actions that are simply possible to achieve) being addressed first.

One way or the other, it would have to be a community effort coming from within the community and made a reality through everyone’s involvement. Don’t expect anything except discouragement and roadblocks from the government, because their interests lie more with the oil companies than with its citizens (disagree with me if you like, but I am not seeing evidence to the contrary).

Essentially, I am not saying the government SHOULDN’T do it, I’m saying the WOULDN’T do it. There’s a difference between can, should, and will.

These suggestions are not the same as the philosophies and actions various survivalist or separatist groups across the nation, because it’s not an attempt to cut off the rest of the world, simply to reduce (or eliminate) the NEED for the outside world. If your community can survive (albeit with tightened belts and careful budgets) without any help from anyone outside the city (or county) limits, then contact from beyond is only going to improve the financial (and lifestyle) situation.

Uh…can someone get my car down…please?

2005-12-26T08:13:00.001-05:00

Monster Garage
By Alex Ulam
Wired
12/2005

An automated parking garage - Park the car, lock the doors, walk away, and the elevators move it up and over into an empty space. Sort of like putting toys away in a warehouse-shelving unit. No parking attendant, no way to walk to your car and drive away, and if the power goes down…then what?

On the one hand it’s ingenious, on the other it’s an awful lot like applying vending machine technology to car parking – and I’ve lost a whole lot of change into those vending machines.

Be all you choose to be

2005-12-26T08:13:00.000-05:00

Memory’s Revenge
By JoAnn Wypiijewski
Mother Jones
Sept/Oct, 2005

This article reviews some programs run by veterans, talking to students (primarily teenagers) about what it’s really like to join the military, and what it’s really like to go to war. They aren’t ashamed of being veterans, they aren’t bashing current enlisted men and women, they’re simply saying ‘this is the real deal, never mind what the recruiters tell you – we’ve actually been there.’

The article presents the objective as discouraging students from enlisting and, perhaps, that is the ultimate objective of the veterans involved. Personally, what I like most about this was the honesty. I have a great respect for people who are able to say: ‘This is my experience, this is the reality of what I lived through, and if your situation is similar, then take my story for what it’s worth and make your own decision.’

It’s no news to me that the recruiters lie…or exaggerate, or place emphasis on the possible outcomes to the point where they may seem to be promises of what will happen. I’ve had my share of friends who enlisted and found themselves disappointed by what they got (compared to what they expected), and I have military family and experience working on a military base…the things I was told when I was a teenager were things I already knew about from personal experience. The exaggerations didn’t mean much, because I already had a good idea about what it was all about. Personally, I don’t hold anything against Recruiters. Recruiters are salesmen with quotas and they are military under orders to meet those quotes. They do what they have to do.

Besides, for all of the young people who are convinced to join the military because it will turn their dead-end life, poverty-induced-lack-of-opportunities, or tendencies toward laziness (or simply poor discipline) around, and were then severely traumatized by the experience of war; there are an equal number of young people who took the same route and did turn their life around. The military is a choice and an opportunity, just like any other. College isn’t for everyone, and neither is the military.

But, this article focuses on the fact that the kids with little to no financial resources and the kids who are poor students are the ones targeted by recruiters. There’s a discrepancy in who fills the ranks based on family and finances. While this is true, and there is something not quite right about it, it’s also true that there are places in this country where there are exactly two opportunities – and the military is one of them. I have lived in an area like this and, as a result, I have a real problem with people who insist that the military is bad, all recruitment should be stopped, and anyone who makes that choice is either destroying their lives or proving themselves to be against peace and friendship between people of the world.

I have a problem with removing half of the opportunity of an entire town/area/region/segment of the population based on the fact that some people don’t like the idea of military due to its connection to war. For many people the military is needed for reasons that have nothing to do with the protection of the nation, and a person doesn’t have to like something to need it, much in the same way that a person does not have to have all-encompassing-support for something to respect it.

This is also part of the reason why I am so adamant about the development and support of small business – if you don’t like the options people are choosing then provide them with opportunities for more choices. There are many people who would choose to start their own business or go to college over entering into the military if the resources and the support required to do so were available to them.

If you want to reduce the number of people entering the military in a given region, then work to develop other options and choices for life paths (and survival) in that region.

But, I digress…

It would be nice if the military were more honest – almost to the point of discouragement. If they would come right out and say: ‘This is what we do, this is what you’ll be up against, this is what we promise, and there’s no guarantee that you’ll get anything more than promised. Advancement and opportunity is based on the following things, and here’s a list of things that are controlled by you….Now, can you handle it, or not?’

This Was My Child
By Cassidy Hartmann
Philadelphia Weekly
Sept 7-13, 2003

Celeste Zappala has been on the news and the local newspapers a lot. While I don’t see her much anymore, there were a few months when she was making the headlines regularly – including a few that claimed she was under surveillance by the FBI for saying that she wanted to kill Bush.

I don’t know if the kill-Bush statement was true or not (I have always suspected it either wasn’t, or it was taken out of context) but, even if she did, it only makes sense given the fact that she’s grieving (and angry) over the death of her son. Death of a loved one means going through extreme emotions (no matter who you are), and anger expressed toward the person responsible for the situation that caused your son’s death sounds pretty logical to me.

Often media sensationalism and sound-bite-sized quotes show great disrespect for the fact that every event in a person’s life involves a process, and time changes their anger and their opinions as the emotions subside and their mind returns to it’s normal state of clarity. Sometimes I worry that this constant bombardment of good-guy bad-guy media coverage, based on half a sentence that happened to bust out of someone’s mouth in the heat of a moment, is causing (or has caused) the general population to forget that everyone has a process, and a path, and stuff they have to work through. Because you don’t agree with me now does not make me evil – in fact, it doesn’t even mean that we will always disagree.

Zappala has been using the media coverage on her son’s death, and her skills as a long time peace activist, to protest the war, to make connection with fellow families of military who’ve been killed in Iraq, and to simply make life hard for Bush.

Zappala makes an interesting point about the illogical arguments in favor of the war. Namely, that they have to continue to fight the war so that the people who have died fighting will not have died in vain. According to Zappala, this translates into making sure that more people die so that the people who are already dead feel…better?

Sometimes I have this harsh reaction to people who get angry about their loved one’s dieing in battle. There’s this it-wasn’t-supposed-to-happen-to-me attitude that bothers me. War is, by it’s nature, a situation where people try to kill each other. The last nation standing, wins.

What did you think was going to happen?

But, I am also of the opinion that there are a lot of unrecognized wars going on in this country right now. There are sides, uniforms, territories, guns, and deaths in the name of my side, occurring in a whole lot of places that many of the people who don’t like war or violence tend to stay away from. And, not all of these places are in the city.

There’s sorrowful acceptance of the people who die on the street due to the choices made concerning the people they associate with the side of the battle they choose. Yet there’s protest and personal offense taken when people die due to making the choice to associate with the US military and whatever side of the battle that institution may choose.

However, all of that said, there is one aspect of this article that really stuck out to me – it was the choice made by Sherwood (Zappala’s son) and his reasons for doing so. Sherwood was in the National Guard, and he’d decided to join after working side-by-side with National Guardsmen stacking sandbags during a significant flood in the area. Sherwood joined the National Guard for the finances needed to help his family get by – but also because he got to know people who were actively enlisted, liked what he saw when they were called to duty, and wanted to take part in protecting his home town. He joined the National Guard because its focus was local.

But, military is military and war is war, so Sherwood became the first Pennsylvania National Guardsman to die in battle since 1945.

His death is heartbreaking, but his decisions were admirable. From what little I know, he lived his life well and he made the decisions he saw were right for him, his family, and his community. He wasn’t forced into it, or tricked into it, or drawn to it out of desperation. He made a choice, knowing full well that there were other choices available to him. I respect that.

I don’t agree with the war, I think war (in general) is something that should be avoided at all costs, while at the same time recognizing that it’s part of the human experience (you can disagree with that if you want to). I would prefer war to consist entirely of hand-to-hand combat (using weapons no more advanced than a bow and arrow) and not guns/tanks/long range missiles/etc because I think it’s more honorable and more apt to develop warriors instead of fighters…but that’s just me.

However, I do believe that every person has a right to their own choice, and one of the choices we all must make is where we belong and how we will take part in our communities. Sherwood did all of that, and I respect his actions and decisions, and I really wish the media and the protests and the anti-war actions could spend more time recognizing that fact about his life…and ours.

Keeping the Legacy Alive
By Lorraine Gennaro
South Philly Review
11/24/2005
http://www.triplenickle.com

Sam Day and Robert Sample are veterans who proudly wear triple nickel insignia. Day served in Korea and Sample served in Vietnam. They were both paratroopers.

The Triple Nickels were the first black paratroopers and later became the first black unit to become part of the US combat division. While the original members were given the job of acting as test platoons for military maneuvers and fighting forest fires (African Americans were not allowed into active combat at that time), they are a legacy, a part of history and the primary reason why African Americans can enter into the ranks of both paratroopers and active combat military.

Day and Sample speak at schools and go over their history as Triple Nickels. They explain what paratroopers do and how the triple Nichols came to be (as well as how they changed the US military). Both Day and Sample made it clear that they didn’t care whether or not someone chose to join the military; they just believe that they were a part of history – and an important part of history that should not be forgotten or passed over.

This is, effectively, the other part of the story. These are the stories from veterans who can’t hide their pride in their involvement or their accomplishments as members of the military.

And this brings me back to the issue of choice.

It’s important for people who are considering enlisting to know what they are getting into – both the good and the bad. There’s glory and there’s gore. There’s orders and actions that a soldier greatly disagrees with and there’s the opportunity to protect your hometown and everyone you know who lives there. There are the vague insinuations of amazing feats of accomplishment that might be yours and there is the bones honest truth about what you are guaranteed to experience and receive…there are a whole lot of sides to the story.

There are many who would like to see an end to recruitment. Personally, I would like to see a significant modification to its methods. Give recruiters the freedom to be honest and the duty of carrying the history of the armed services (particularly the history of the military in the area the recruiter is stations in) to the people in their area. Make recruiters the people who represent the military with the power (and secondary objective) to complete the paperwork for anyone wishing to enlist. Provide veterans with a contact who is both able and under orders to provide venues where their voices can be heard and their stories told – all sides of the stories (perhaps even point-counterpoint debates made up entirely of veterans).

If that kind of change were made, I would support anyone trying to make this a part of the local community events managed/supported by city government, and a mandatory part of the history and civics classes required for both high school and college students.

Every person makes their own decisions, and respect for the individual making life-changing decisions is expressed through the action of honesty, and the presentation of complete information is part of what it means to be honest.

'cause it's not about Oil

2005-12-26T08:12:00.000-05:00

In the Garden of Armageddon
By Kurt Pitzer
Mother Jones
Sept/Oct, 2005

Mahdi Obeidi is the only Weapons of Mass Destruction scientist (WMD) brought into the United States for safety and information. Obeidi has to go to the press to force the US to do it, too.

Apparently there are hundreds of WMD scientists, some of whom are world renowned for their research and breakthrough science in the area of nuclear war power, and al but a small handful are missing. The speculation is that they have taken underground jobs with countries and groups interested in creating their own weapons (as the knowledge these people possess is highly valuable), or they’ve been killed in the war and political unrest of their homeland. Whatever their fate, the US neither knows nor seems to care.

Obeidi had hoped to bring his colleagues to the United States and share their knowledge with US scientists and politicians. The US turned him down.

If this war is about terrorists and WMDs, then why the disinterest in the people who know how to make them, whether or not they were ever made in Iraq, and (possibly) where they are located?

My way, your way, and insults all around

2005-12-26T08:10:00.000-05:00

Why is France Burning?
By Doug Ireland
The Nation
11/28/2005

There are ghettoes in France, filled with Arabs (who are also Muslim) from countries formally under French control (read: colonies). These are people who were brought into the country either as refugees (transported by military leaders who refused to follow orders to leave everyone not born in France-proper behind during a bloody massacre) or as laborers. They were placed in low-income housing out of view of the French cities.

Effectively, they are the imported working class that France no longer needs and would just assume leave the country.

So, now the Arab youth, fed up with treatment from all possible sides, have started burning things. Buildings, cars, shops…whatever. They are rioting all over the country and they are using their cell phones to communicate with one another when then see the police coming and need to move to a new area.

For some reason I never think of European Countries as having

The Dutch-Muslim Culture War
By Deborah Scroggins
The Nation
06/27/2005

Ayaan Hirsi is a woman who was raised Muslim in Somalia under full-veil. She has experienced female circumcision first-hand and is now living in the Netherlands after escaping from relatives who were taking her to the man (located in Canada) she’d been promised to as a wife.

Hirsi helped in the creation of a movie (Submission) about Islam’s oppression of women. As a result local radical Muslims have made death threats, and one of them has already killed her collaborator on the film.

The Netherlands has an immigrant population of Muslims that accounts for 5.5 percent of the population, but produces the largest number of women seeking help from battered women’s shelters and abortion clinics. There are those who would like to point to the patriarchal culture, and not the religion of Islam (which could be easily interpreted in a female-friendly way).

Some things I found interesting:
1) The most violent and radical Muslims are the one’s who were born in Europe and are disconnected from the lands of their birth. In the Netherlands, as elsewhere, the Muslim population lives in communities separate from the rest of the population, and enforces Muslim laws within their areas. Laws including honor killings are enforced among Muslims, and cause problems in the countries they live as national laws calls them murder.
2) 2) The countries facing the issue of Muslim populations, angry and disconnected youth, Muslim women getting their first taste of freedom and feminism (and the resulting problems within their community), and the fact that the European standard for working with Immigrants is to give them their own, separate, area to live and then either forget about them or make their lives difficult (or both), consists of most of Europe. The article mentions France, Germany, Holland, Switzerland, Norway, The Netherlands, and Austria.

Can it Happen Here?
By Richard Alba and Nancy Foner
The Nation
10/17/2005

The integration of church and state is a significant factor in terrorist acts performed by European Muslims due to the estrangement from the local community, the inability to build a Mosque for worship, the lack of Muslim based schools (or the ability to build them), and state mandated integration of the local religion (primarily Christianity) in all fascist of government and life.

According to this article, when immigrants of any nation arrive in a country and are not brought into the community with an ability to practice their own religion freely, they are difficult to convert into patriots of their chosen country.

Thus, the Bush administration’s push to integrate Christianity into government affairs as much as possible (and often in backdoor and sneaky ways) is inviting acts of terrorism through the estrangement of community.

Thoughts on all Three Articles:

Racial issues are obviously a worldwide concern. Trying to deal with incoming populations and the language, culture, beliefs, and struggles they bring is not easy. There are no easy answers and everyone’s sense of identity is affected or challenged.

What is French or British or German or American?

Definitions change as populations change, but change can be both messy and violent.

That said, I think it’s dangerous to say that there is one thing that causes it, or one action that will fix it. It’s never that simple and the factors affecting each country will be different – regardless if every country is working with the same population (example: Muslims).

The separation of church and state is important. When the government gets tangled up in religion and philosophy, the possibility for holy wars (both inside and outside of the country’s borders) significantly increases.

For example: How can you say you’re Irish if you’re not Catholic? How can you say you’re British if you’re not Protestant? How can the British occupying Ireland allow the Catholics to continue their Catholic ways when the British now have control and they’re all supposed to act like they’re British anyway?

A government and a culture accepting of the fact that everyone has their own traditions based on family and experience, everyone has their own spiritual path, and none of that is anyone’s problem save the person living it, would probably have an easier time of it. But, that would require acceptance of that fact on all sides.

Which affectively makes evangelical Christianity a blatant deterrent to peace between people due to it’s near obsessive emphasis on recruitment and forcing the world to always state that they are correct in whatever they may choose to believe or demand.

However, Christianity is not the only religion or culture that takes a hard nosed (arrogant?) perspective to all persons living outside of their ranks. The us-versus-them thing is a powerful force imbedded into most (if not all) religions.

How does one govern a population having problems based on culture and religion without getting involved in those religions? Particularly when some (if not all) of those religions have hateful (if not violent) opinions and reactions to other religions in their area?

This is another commentary that I will end with the words: I don’t know.

I have no brilliant answer, I’m just pointing out that there’s more to this than is currently being discussed.

The Good ‘ole Days of Spies and Intrigue are Finally Back

2005-12-26T08:09:00.000-05:00

Revving Up the China Threat
By Michael Klare
The Nation
10/24/2005

Dragon Tales
By James Galbraith
Mother Jones
Sept/Oct, 2005

China is the new ‘evil empire.’ They’re taking away jobs, producing super low cost goods that make competition in this country difficult, and they’re building up more advanced weaponry and military power.

Oh, and they want our oil too…er, uh…the oil found in other countries that we are currently protecting and/or competing for.

I guess this means that we can all celebrate the return of old-style James Bond movies (replacing Russia with China), political insinuations of mass attack and destruction of local culture by the evil communists, and even the return of the word ‘commie’ as an insult (once the word ‘terrorist’ has lost it’s popularity).

I guess the US political structure was feeling nostalgic.

The oracle foretold the hurricane, the people did not listen, and they could not communicate when it arrived...

2005-12-26T08:06:00.000-05:00

Reinventing 911
By Gary Wolf Wired
12/2005

Bread Roses & The Flood
By Eric Foner
The Nation
10/03/2005

Levee Town
By Alexander Cockburn
The Nation
10/03/2005

Intelligible Design
By Kathy Pollitt
The Nation
10/03/2005

Why the Hurricane Plan Got Trashed
By Peter Schwartz
Wired
11/2005

Gary Wolf, in his examination of ways in which the entire 911 system is (or could be) changing, examines the Hurricane Katrina situation from a scientific point of view. This is something that anyone who’s angry or disturbed about the hurricane should read, because it covers more than the politics and the lack of manpower into the poorer areas of New Orleans – it covers an entire communication system that went down (from the ground up as well as the top down), and several scientific warnings and what-if scenarios supplied to the city…several of which proved to be prophetic, point for point.

There are some very good points made about the insurance game weighing out the costs of prevention over the costs of post-disaster payment, as well as the simply no-longer-applicable-or-workable system of centralized and rigidly structured warning systems.

There are new systems and new ideas, some of which have been very successfully implemented in California (as earthquake prevention as well as day-to-day public safety) and none of it require new technology or billions of dollars in research. It’s a just a new way of handling communication by basing it on the idea that more people and organizations need to have immediate access to potential (and current) dangers. Organizations like schools, hospitals, the security divisions of large high-rises, and even people with cells phones and pagers who request emailed updates on anything happening in their area.

The perspective presented by the Wired article, is that the majority of the problems faced by Katrina could have been prevented through implementation of suggestions from scientists before the event occurred, and greatly helped by a simple and wide spread network of communication that would have informed most, if not all, of the citizens of New Orleans of what was about to happen (or was happening).

Scientifically speaking, it didn’t have to happen, and it could be easily avoided in the future.

Scientifically speaking, the government’s method of addressing potential terrorist attacks through increased secrecy and rigidly structured control is not only not effective, it sets us up for significant damage, should the attacks actually occur. The only safety is a safety in numbers, and that means letting the people in on what’s going on – everything that’s going on.

Peter Schwartz (Why the Hurricane Plan Got Trashed), looks at the disaster from another scientific view – the near prophetic research from scientists who have been presenting reports and warnings since the 1960s. Work that was blatantly ignored and undermined by political structures focused on short-term thinking. Bottom line, there was no one in a position of power who did not have access to information telling them exactly (point for point) what was going to happen, and none of them chose to act on the information.

The political points of view, expressed in the articles from The Nation, are focused on 1) the government’s poor handling of the situation before and after, 2) the fact that poor people were the one’s who were hit hard (non-whites who were middle to upper class got away just like the rest of the people in their income bracket), 3) the reconstruction of New Orleans will involve the take over of large quantities of land previously called home by the city’s poorest residents, as the plans for new low-income housing places those people on the outskirts of the city (conveniently falling in line with city plans and objectives that have been in place for a very long time), 4) the poor is New Orleans are a necessary low-wage source of workers, but no one wants to actually have to see them, and 5) now that the world has seen the horrors of the tragedy, and is aware of just how desperate in New Orleans are, things will begin to change.

Some of this makes sense, and some of it doesn’t.

Foner (Bread, Roses, and the Flood) compares Katrina to the Lawrence, MA strike of 1912, where the march of under-nourished, poorly clothed, and heartbreakingly poor children out of the city (in preparation for the strike, the kids were sent to live elsewhere for the duration of the negotiations), caused the public and government officials to stand up and take notice. Once the children were seen, the concerns of their families could no longer be ignored. The problem with this argument is the fact that we are not living in the world of 1912. Commercials, media, and even advertising campaigns (ever stop into a Starbucks take a look at the photos of the workers who grow the beans that make their coffee?) present similar, and sometimes worse, images every day. All of those adopt-a-child campaigns with emaciated children whose eyes and nose are covered in flies have been come both hum-drum and the source of jokes. While there are plenty of people who are related to the people in New Orleans, and the event is directly connected to our own government, it’s going to fade from the public eye (and the public memory) rather quickly. The changes that need to be made, and the issues that have been raised, in New Orleans are not going to be made during the course of a 2-3 month media blitz. And, our government officials (and the businesses that work with them) have gotten very good at making promises, and then taking actions that only seem to follow through on the promises made. The world is more complicated and more jaded than the world of 1912, and sad pictures just aren’t going to cut it.

Alexander Cockburn (Levee Town) makes a good point for the convenient nature of the hurricane to any and all developers who are looking for the opportunity to take over lands previously covered in housing owned by the poor. In his words: “The scarcely suppressed class war in New Orleans was what gave the place, and its music, its edge. And why, at least until now, the Disneyfication of the core city could never quite be consummated.” Now the city and the developers and the tourist trade kings can take over New Orleans and turn it into a year-round Marti Gras with a sterilized version of the music the city’s known for and the places it can be heard played. So, was this a planned mistake, or just happy coincidence for the ones in charge of the money and the power?

Katha Pollitt (Intelligible Design) takes the disaster and broadens the scope of the state of the nation that Katrina illustrates. She touches on education, birth control, religious fanaticism, the loss of jobs to cheaper-wages in other countries, abortion and single mothers, and the attempts on the part of government to remove itself from the business of government through excessive privatization and pandering to the wealthy elite. The country was headed for a disaster; Katrina was that disaster, now where are we headed from here?

The hurricane, like most natural disasters, was heartbreaking and full of pointing fingers. The reason it happened was up to nature (or, if you prefer, God), but the reaction was up to us. ‘Us’ is often interpreted as the government we pay for in taxes and loss of personal freedom, and there’s always a lot of time spent on ‘you were supposed to’ commentary from people concerned about things people in power really don’t spend much time on…unless, of course, it’s an election year.

I was once told a story by a professor (during my undergraduate years) that described a community that had decided to make a decision. The incidence of fetal alcohol syndrome was dangerously high, so the community had discussions and then announced to all living within the borders of their area that pregnant women will not drink – period. We can’t control what you do outside of our area, but when you’re here, you will not drink. For whatever reason, government officials came in and took the community to court based on the idea that they were violating a woman’s right to privacy. The community didn’t bother to show up to court and the government won their case. However, if you were living in that community, and you were pregnant, you did not drink. Those were the house rules – like it or leave. Fetal alcohol syndrome in that community dropped significantly and, therefore, the rules struck…government be damned.

That story has stuck with me since the day I heard it. Government is only as useful, or as powerful, as we chose to make it. Sometimes it’s safer, and more effective, to simply identify your community’s needs and address them directly…government be damned.

In this age of technology (and the relatively easy access to it) it would be merely a matter of logistics to create a people-created and people-run 911 system - a warning network more elaborate and more affective than the old phone tree idea, but similar to it in spirit.

In fact, I rather think that there are a lot of things that people rely on the government, and big business, for that could be done away with (or supplemented in case of emergency) through a little ingenuity and networking. Finances are always an issue, granted, but if something is needed badly enough, and a community recognizes the need (and the fact that they are going to have to take care of themselves if they ever want it done), there are ways around that.

The one thing that I have taken from the Katrina disaster is that it’s a dangerous thing to view your government as a safety net or a friendly ‘uncle.’ There are thousands upon thousands of communities in this country, making us a patchwork of needs, ideas, beliefs, and objectives. If each community would truly focus on the bare necessities and the needs of its people from the perspective of a worst-case scenario (read: What do we need to survive? How will we know when serious danger is afoot? How will we handle losing all services from governments and companies?), and then taking a good hard look at their immediate communities and making simple changes (in housing, in communication, in resources, in back up generators, etc), it would not only reduce the affects of disaster upon their community, it would reduce the power of government over their lives.

Of course, this is the kind of action that must come from within a community – not something that should be mandated (or financed or managed) by government. It’s not so much a suggestion for a new way to handle and govern things, as it is a recognition of the dact that we all have more power than we think we have, and taking some of that under our own control can be a good thing.

While it is important to always work for change, to never stop questioning government, and to never let them off the hook for not supplying the services they are there to supply; it’s equally important to be realistic about the bare-necessity needs of your community, and how they will be addressed should the cavalry never arrive.

Death is wrong when it's on TV

2005-12-22T16:02:00.000-05:00

(still doing these on the fly...spellchecks will return someday, promise)

After running across a few articles on the execution of Stanley 'Tookie' Williams and doing a little thinking about the abolitionists/anti-death-penalty activists I've knoen over the years (not to mention my own back and forth opinions on the issue) I did another one of my searches for information and opinions.

The following articles cover the entire spectrum.

A Guilty Man
by Vince Beiser
Mother Jones
Sept/Oct, 2005

Vince Beiser covers the story of Bill Wiseman - the state legislator who wrote the legislation adopting lethl injection as a method of execution in Oklahoma. Wiseman is anti-death-penalty, but he'd hoped to make executions more humane. Now he feels guilty because it appears that lethal injection has made the death penalty easier to select as a punishment because it's so quiet, calm, and easy to complete as a process. No bodies swining from a rope, no burning flesh in the chair, no load noises from a fireing squad - just a criminal appearing to go to sleep. Sort of like putting a pet down, really.

Now Wiseman is a religious lader and actively working against the death penalty, while atoning for his part in making it so much easier to enact.

This also goes over how terribly painful and difficult lethal injection can be, given no doctors take part in the procedure and the injectible-drug-affected viens of many who are executed can cause the sedation and pain killing aspects of the process to fail to enter into the system properly (or at all), thereby leaving the criminal paralized (as that portion is always completed) and in excrutiating pain as the poison passes through.

The possibility for less than five minutes of fire in the veins pain is given as a strong reason for ending the death penalty.

Curiously, media are indifferent to victims
by Kerry Dougherty
The Virginia-Pilot
12/15/2005

Dougherty speaks for the victems of the murders on death row and asks why their names are not as well known, and their cause (memory) is nowhere near as well publicized, or considered to be of concern, as the criminals on death row.

How can anti-death-penalty activists forget or ignore the people who were executed by the people being executed?

Her unstated point is well taken - her's was the only article I ran accross that focused on the victems (and their names and families) specifically. Many didn't even name, much less pay tribute, to the people who died at the hands of those being executed.

While Dougherty directs her opinions at anti-death-penalty activists, she doesn't directly address the directly related issue - the complete lack of coverage in the press. The little blond girl who was a child model and murdered in her family home was splashed all over every tabloid a grocery store might carry, for months (years?) and I've purposely blocked her name so I can't tell you what it is...the point is, she's the only victem anyone really knows anything about, and that's because she was cute, she was photogrnic, and she was blond.

Hundreds Attend Rites for Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
Compiled by the Diversity Inc staff
© 2005 DiversityInc.com®
December 21, 2005

This one made me cringe. Hundreds of people showed up for the funeral of Stanley 'Tookie' Williams, including a popular rapper who read a poem insisting that this rather famous gang leader didn't do it - at which point the people in the parking lot, watching the funeral on the television stationed there, cheered.

One of many opinions I've stumbled accross insisting that because Tookie had atoned for his sins (and a wrote a few children's books) he should have been forgiven and released, not executed.

It's also one of a few articles that imply that Tookie was framed because he was black and the system doesn't like black men. There is no explanation for how he can be so clean and innocent when everyone freely admits (and even proudly declares) that he founded an extremely violent gang...do the original members of gangs start out as Eagle Scounts who just naively let bad apples join in their little club and then lose control over the actions and behavior of the people spoiling their good name?

Like it or not, agree with it or not, the fact that he was black and he was killed makes him a symbol of oppression and injustice in this country.

It is also never discussed that sometimes attoning for your past, and taking responsibility for your actions, also involves facing the consequences of those actions. Sometimes 'I'm sorry' doesn't get you off - no matter who you are.

Costs of the Death Penalty
Death Penalty Information Center
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/

This is a listing of the costs associated with giving a convicted criminal the death penalty. If you look them over, you'll see they are quite large.

I believe that they're that large, but only because people sit on death row for decades. There is no comparison to the cost of placing someone in prison for life - particularly someone who's crimes and/or behaviors require them to be placed in a secured area away from the general population.

The crime, not his race, put Baker on death row
by Gregory Kane
Baltimore News
12/03/2005

This is the first (and only) article that I ran accross which pointedly (and directly) stated that Stanley 'Tookie' Williams came to the fate he did because of his own actions.

Kane also points out the fact that the same crime Tookie was convicted for will get you death row in one area of town, and barely a flinch (or a trial) in another. There are regions where it's safer to be a criminal than others.

Of course, if you have a large reputation, have racked up enough crimes, or hold enough criminal power, then you have this way of becoming of interested to the people in charge of sending killers to jail. Kane doesn't mention this point, but his commentary on location is clear.

OK. So, having gone over all of the above (and a few not listed above), what are my own conclusions on the topic?

I associate with left-wing politics, I think that much is clear. However, like it or not, my opinions on this topic are not very 'lefty.'

The points made about the victems gruesome and violent deaths (often taking a far longer time and involving far more torture than execution), and the fact that people who commit crimes living out the consequences of those crimes, are very much in line with what I think.

However, when it comes down to it, they are not what bother me the most. What really makes my spine itch is the focused placed on the deaths everyone can see.

I have known people who have spent time in prison. I have become good friends with people who spent a significant time in prison. I have become good friends with people who have immediate relatives in prison. Anyone who's been that close to the realities of incarceration know - people die in prison. Lot's of people die in prison and most of them are at the hands of other prisoners.

Then, there's the fact that people are murdered on the street everyday. Often, the people who find themselves in prison (regardless of how long) have been very close to murder, either through the death of someone close, or witnessing a death of someone they don't know when taht person is gunned down in front of them.

Violence is out there. So is retribution.

The strangest aspect to the death penalty (from my perspective) is the fact that death row is one of the safest places a person can be (as far as prison goes). Death row is seperate from the general population and under heavy guard (from what I understand). The chances of a death row inmate being randomly killed by another inmate in prison, are pretty slim, whereas the chance of a general population inmate dying at the hands of another inamte, are higher than the penal system would probably like known.

Add onto that the number of people tortured and killed in domestic abuse cases with murderers rarely, if ever, coming to trial because of their personal connection-relationship to the victem (as long as you marry the woman before hand, slitting her throat isn't quite as big of a deal).

And then there are the prostitutes, transients, children, and other 'invisible' people who are murdered and never noticed or investigated.

Not to mention the people who commit crimes, or murders, or otherwise offend people, and wind up dead as a matter of revenge and vigilante justice. Convicts getting out of prison have to face this on the streets. Convicts in prison have to face it from the cell block. People who've never been caught have to live with it.

Why is it better to be killed in the privacy of your own community, by fellows seeking vigilante revenge, then to be sentenced to death after a complete trial?

There's a whole lot of killing going on, but the state mandated, they-got-a-trial, make-this-as-humane-as-possible, televised on TV, wait-in-near-absolute-security-for-decades, and everyone-knows-it's-going-to-happen deaths are just to much for some people to handle.

Sometimes I think the biggest problem with the death penalty is the wait. Sentence to death and kill within a few days - that makes more sense to me...

But I'm left wing and that's a bit harsh for someone on the left.

Regardless of my opinion of time-on-death-row, I would really prefer to hear a lot less talk about execution from anti-death workers and a lot more about violence, murder, and death in our lives and our streets.

Gene testing and lawsuits - Native America waging battles

2005-12-22T11:03:00.000-05:00

(Once again, please excuse the lack of a spellcheck - I'm doing this on the fly these days)

Blood Feud
by Brendan L. Koerner
Wired
09/2005

Accounting Coup
by Julia Whitty
Mother Jones
Sept/Oct, 2005

One of the reasons I subscribe to a variety of magazines is best illustrated by these two articles. The popular science take on the issues faced by Native Americans greatly differs from that of the liberal-activists-unionists perspective.

Koerner's focus is the genetic testing being used to define the racial history of any given person. Rick Kittles founded African Ancestry, and developed techniques have been helping African Americans find out where their roots are - which areas of the world and (at times) specific tribes.

The Native American aspect is the satus of freemen (people who were declared black by the US gov't in the 1800s) within the tribes. According to this article, the tribes are becoming rich off of the casinos and a lot of people are trying to declare themselves of native Heritage to get a peice of the financial pie. Due to politics and financial interest, tribal leaders decided to decare freemen non-native, and thre them out of their respective tribes.

The article lists many tribes affected by this issue, so the sense is that all Native American tribes are throwing out the blacks in their ranks.

To the resuce of this situation is genetic science and the man offering the define-your-bloodline service to the freemen trying to get, or get back, tribal membership.

Whitty's focus is on Elouise Cobell of the Blackfeet Nation and her fight with the US Gov't (the Bureau of Indian Affiars, specifically) to get complete documentation of monies due to the Native Americans whose lands have been 'managed' by the gov't (read: taken over, leased out to ranchers and oil tycoons, and profits taken in - yet seldom, if ever, doled back out). Elouise is an accountant and banker, she set up Native American banks (which are thriving and helping to create and support native American businesses), and is in a long-term court case to get the control over the funds into Native Hands (and away from the BIA) as well as the back money due (dateing back to the 1800s).

This article's focus is on the actions of an activist who is taking charge and making change. It's presentation of Native America is one that portrays the nations as extremly poor and very supportive of one another. One of banding together to fight poverty, lack of education, and unacceptable treatment at the hands of the gov't formed by the people who invaded and took over their land (by force).

So, which is right?

Why the drastic difference?

Science shows unacceptable splits caused by a recent flood of incoming cash that can be cured by genetics capable of proving the absolute percentage of every possible bloodline that person happens to carry. Socially-focused activism shows amazing feats of collaberation and change among people facing desperation and absolute poverty.

For absolutely no logical reason, when I read the Wired article, I had this gut response of wrongness. For some reason, I found myself thinking that their was a strong possibility that either the author greatly exageratted the situation, or he was taken for a fool. I have no proof or counter evidence to base this on, just a general sense of something not being right.

However, those interested in science are concered with genetics and their possible application.

Interesting thing - the article never goes into the potential ethical issues, of problems that might arise, from people being able to define race via a blood test. Rick Kittles is quoted as saying that massive genetic testing would prove that no one was as pure as he or she thinks they are, but that's as far as that part of the issue goes.

Whitty's article, never touches on Native American tribe's that are dealing with increases in income due to casino business, or the affect their experiences are having on the court case, native American banking, or financial issues Native Amricans, overall, are facing. Accirding to her, all native Americans are living in tiny shacks with $30 BIA checks covering their expense.

Granted, every author must make a point in a limited amount of words, but sometimes the differences in opinion are fascinating...and disturbing.

I suppose one must always keep in mind that the extremes sell, and the truth lies somewhere in between.

If it glows it grows

2005-12-20T13:00:00.000-05:00

(please excuse the lack of a spellcheck on this one...)

I had heard somewhere that the area around the Chernobyl disaster had a lot of unusual wildlife living in it. I distinctly recall the phrase "heards of tiny horses." Now, to my overly-saturated-with-science fiction-and-fantasy-literature mind, this produced some fascinating images. For some reason, this came to mind today, so I went out to find reported evidence of tiny horses (and, hopefully, a photo or a description what 'tiny' actually meant).

(I read all of the following articles one right after the other, please forgice me if the data I am mentioning is not directly below the appropriate article. I assure you, it's all in there...somewhere.)

Nature thrives in Chernobyl scene of the world's most devastating nuclear accidentby Steve Connor, science editor
the Independent
06/06/200

According to this article, the interest from scientists interested in Ecology, and scientists who specialize in radioecology (I had no idea there was a field of study dedicated to the effects of radiation on ecology), is quite large due to the unique nature of the situation ---> large quantities of radiation dumped into the region, immediately followed by the evacuation of all but a small handful of humans.

The result? Wildlife, plant life, endangered species and nature is both flurishing and returning to it's natural state. While the capture and testing of wildlife has shown a huge amount of radiation and significant changes to DNA (in some species, like moles), there are no obvious changes to the physical appearance of the animals and no affect on their ability to survive and breed. In fact, endangered species are doing extremely well - most likely due to the near elimination of human presence.

Chernobyl Animals Highly Contaminated But Undeformed
University Of Georgia Press release
09/16/1997

After Chernobyl accident wildlife flourishes
Ecological Society of America
August 10, 2005

With the exception of an increase in the incidence of partially albino barn swallows (read: they have a few white feathers here and there), there's no discernable change. While there were reports of birth defects immediately after the accident, they have not continued.

There have been some tudies of migratory birds that show they have a lower production of eggs, that the eggs are more fragile, and the over-all birth rate is down. However, the number of birds is increasing (again, the removal of humans and the restoration of habitat have allowed for this).

There are also horses thriving in the region, but they are not deformed or amazingly modified 'tiny' horses. They are Przewalski's Horse, a breed that was introduced to the area before the accident and is now running wild in perfectly healthy herds. Granted, these horses are smaller than the average domesticated horse, but they're still larger than the miniture horses they use for kiddie rides at county fairs.

Oh, and Wikipedia's notation that these are no longer found in the wild is no longer accurate as they are now in the protected region around Chernobyl...at least, I think this designation is no longer accurate. One of these articles ( I forget which) describes feeding the horses with piles of feed carried in on the back of a truck (just like any horse farm I've ever seen).

FEATURE - Belarus wolves prowl round Chernobyl zone
By Larisa Sayenko
Belarusian Chronicle
10/30/1998

One of the USSR's version of a Park Ranger is interviewed as he gives a tour of the region. This manager of wildlife loves the wolves and it thrilled by their progress. In fact, the govt has authorized the 'culling' (read: killing by preserve employees for the sake of reducing the size of the pack) of wolves to prevent them from eating themselves into extinction or eating the rest of the animals to terribly low levels.

This article also goes over all of the wildlife that's being re-interoduced into the area. Since the region has been made a national preserve (due to the inability for humans to live there) those interested in wildlife and conservation are adding bears and bison and the wolves are already flourishing and...

Fascinating. I could help but read this article and think...the only way to keep the humans out long enough for the land to restore itself is to contaminate the entire area with nuclear dust. Then, with the humans gone, everything else is able to live.

So, radical environmentalists could (in theory) stop pounding spikes into trees and just arrange for massive radioactive contamination of...say...the Alaskan wilderness or Yellowstone National Park.

That is, of course, more than just a little on the crazy side, but it brings up a few interesting points: 1) Just because humans can't live there does not mean that nothing can, and 2) It takes complete contamination of a region to get the humans out long enough to allow an area to heal.

Picnic at Chernobyl
Saturday October 9, 1999
The Guardian

The people living in the preserve are living life as though there is no contamination and just accepting their tumors and lives however they come. People living so close to the wilderness they love while considering themselves already dead (or so the author suggests).

Again, an interesting scenario ---> the only people living with the wilderness, and working to enhance and preserve it, while living off of the land as best they can, are the ones resigned to the fact that doing so will, eventually, kill them at a relatively early age.

Does human society without the constant threat of death by forces beyond human control result in behavior that is damaging to everything around them. Are we creating the predators we have so affectively eliminated? Is there a natural inclination towards the culling of the human species through 'accidents' in arrangement and science and behavior?

The Truth About Chernobyl Is Told
by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc.
21st Century Science & Technology Magazine
Winter 2000-2001

And here we have the other end of the spectrum. Despite all of the reports of thousands dead (contrary to gov't reports of 30 people) and exceptionally high incidents of cancer, these reports are suggesting that it's all a hoax and radiation contamination causes none of these things.

My earlier comment about getting the humans out long enough for a region to heal must be tempered by another observation...the number of times the former wealth and general richness of the land was mentioned. Not to mention the number of article not cited that examined animal life only in the context of the amount of radiation a human would be exposed to if they were eat/skin/use that animal.

There are many mentions (on all ends of the situation and it's related issues) concerning the numbers of years before humans can move in, and the number of humans who are living there anyway. Some of those that are living there anyway are doing just fine, while the rest a slowly dying an early death.

Yet, some are just fine and the area could be useful for making money...

Maybe it's just my own sense of paranoia and general un-impressed attitude toward the free-market system's out of control state, but I'm sensing a trend toward re-entering the region within the next few decades (instead of the several hundred years it would take for the contamination to wear off). How long before the human species can just stay away?

How long before our amazingly short memories forget about the explosion and the illness and the warning and the research? How many generations before someone decides that it's all ancient history and those people don't know what they're talking about anyway?

How long with the wilds of the area *really* have to heal?

Motorcycling through Pripyat and the Chernobyl Dead Zone: A Photojournal of Elena and her Kawasaki ZZR 1100 travelling in the desolate area around Chernobyl and Pripyat.

And here we have a young woman on a motorcycle biking her way through the area around Chernobyl. Apparently people have tried setting up tour companies for the purpose of letting people pay for the opportunity to see (what people thought would be) the dead zone. Apparently, the deafening silence of no humans in the towns was to much for some tourists and the tours stopped running.

Still, there are adventurers who head into the area and explore the dangerous and forbidden and seldom trodden paths of the protected preserve around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.

Mom & Pop v.s. The Mall

2005-12-16T09:00:00.000-05:00

We’ve made it with store’s possible opening here
by Kerry Dougherty
The Virginian-Pilot
© November 22, 2005

Va. sales tax just doesn’t add up for this shopper
by Kerry Dougherty
The Virginian-Pilot
© December 13, 2005

Spend any amount of time talking politics and/or activism with me and you'll find that I'm near militant about small business. I strongly believe in the need to create and support small family businesses (including family farms). Why? Because (in my opinion) the small businesses are what give a town its character and it's strength. They are what make one city different from another, provides the residents a sense of civic connection (pride being something that is developed over time), and establishes an economic backbone that stands as the only defense against the complete collapse of opportunity and the vibrancy of a living community if (when?) the big business large-employer pulls out.

Families are positively supported and influenced by the creation and long-term working of a family business. Lessons learned by life experience that comes from the cooperation of relatives and the summers and weekends spent helping out in the family restaurant/shop are invaluable.

Communities are also positively affected by the presence of many family businesses.

It is said that there is great political danger in the loss of the middle ground and the middle class. That is part of what leads us into holy wars, world wars, and other extremist (and regrettable) action.

More than political middle ground is at stake. Both economic stability and community cohesiveness are at stake. There is power in numbers, but when the numbers are dependant upon one or two businesses (or, even, industries) then the power to address the negative affects of those businesses (or industries) upon the community at large is greatly limited.

Besides, if you've ever traveled to a foreign country, or a unique little town, only to find the same malls, fast food restaurants, movie theaters, and television shows that you have in your home town, then you know the feeling of immense disappointment that comes from going on a grand adventure only to learn that the world has become a highly homogenized place. There's no adventure or fascination or tales of confusion that come from trying to navigate a new and unfamiliar place. There’s just one, long, strip mall with the same five super-huge conglomerates running (and profiting) from the lot of it.

Lecturing and protesting aside, the two editorials posted by Dougherty touch on this same issue - the fallibility of thinking that a town has lost it's 'hick' status because a big chain grocery store is considering setting up shop, and the advantages to small business (and residents) through small gestures handed out but government and community(e.g.: the tax holiday resulting in more sales).

Part of the reason that I support a socialized system of health care in this country is because of the huge benefits it would provide small business. It's difficult to start, or maintain, a business when you are unable to cover health care/insurance for your own family, much les your employees.

I imagine there are similar things that could be done on a community-wide scale for retirement benefits and similar things generally provided by employers, thereby greatly increasing a small business's ability to support it's staff, it's owners, and itself (like a community wide computer technical support system employing geeks like me who answer computer questions posed by most/all members of the community).

Granted, in the grand scheme of things, medical benefits are far from the only concern both new and well established small/family businesses have. However, when I run across article covering work being done by various community officials and/or chamber of commerce organizations (in a wide variety of locations) I see a lot of focus on attracting large employers. The companies that can settle in and offer 300+ jobs in one shot (regardless of rate of pay or nature of work) are the goal - the gold ring, the big account, the fisherman’s photograph beside the biggest fish of them all. While that's great for personal notoriety on the part of the negotiator (or political body) that pulled it off, what does it do for the community in the long term?

It would be a relief to find a community that was actually focused on small business development. It's one of those things that people talk about, but action that does anything substantially helpful is seldom seen.

The guy in the Priest costume handing out condoms? Yeah, I know him...

2005-12-15T20:16:00.000-05:00

On the way home from work yesterday a friend was telling me about having been in the newspaper...lots of newspapers, actually...for a safe sex publicity stunt that he pulled off.

So, I went hunting around and found a few news articles...

Catholic Church Scandal Prompts Protests in Center City
KYW NewsRadio 1060
by KYW’s John McDevitt
12/12/05

Condoms in hand, lone protester heckles worshipers at Cathedral
By G.W. MILLER III
Philadelphia Inquirer
12/12/2005

Yes, indeed, I know the guy who dressed up in a Priest's costume and stood outside a Catholic church encouraging parishioners to practice safe sex when fornicating with the clergy as they passed on their way to Sunday morning Mass.

As would be expected, there were some angry people. There were also some perplexed and amused and concerned people. Whatever their opinions there were a lot of people who knew it was happening (thanks to pres releases) and now there are people talking (debating, arguing, etc), about it.

Sometimes the outrageously effective is best described as things that make you go...huh?

The condom giving Priest has a website and it can be seen here:

http://freepoliticalspeech.com/

As for myself? The power of publicity aside, I'm not real sure how I feel about it. I spent a good number of years in Catholic School and Catholic Church and, while I've worked through most of my own Love-Hate issues with the whole religion/organization, I still have knee jerk reactions to certain kinds of behaviors related to Mass. While it didn't bother me at all when my condom wheeling colleague was telling me about his exploits (outside of a clearly voiced concern about the potentially dangerous nature of many of the stunts he pulls) those old tugs of guilt started to be felt when I read the write-ups on it.

After some thought and a little time (to allow the initial kid-fears to pass) I came up with only one truly clear and strong thought about the event...it was rude.

Now, I'm not saying I have never done anything impolite, outrageous, rude, or regretful. There are stories in my memory that I would prefer to re-write the plot lines (and the endings) to; therefore, I feel fully justified in claiming that my opinion is coming from the experience of one who has worn Priest costumes of her own over the years. That experience is one born of uncomfortable feelings of regret.

Shame you can get over, anger can be worked through, but regret just never seems to leave that every chattering nag-happy voice in the back of my mind. This may not be the condom-man's experience, but it is mine, and that's what I speak from.

The regrets I feel strongest are the ones that involved a disrespect of space, of tradition, of culture, of worship, of position. They are those times when I chose to cut through a situation with the blunt and flaming end of anger combined with the force of one who wishes to see things change here, now, and as dictated by me.

I consider the pretend priest with the condoms and I don't feel offended by what he did. Quite frankly I find it interesting, intriguing, curious, and unique - but none of those things are strong or highly motivating emotions. It's more like an artist watching another artist perform and wondering if this show will turn out as planned.

What I do feel strongly about is the image of myself taking that action, instead of the man who chose to do it. Were I to be the one who chose to put on the rubber gloves and hand out the prophylactics, I can say for a fact that I would be struggling with regret many winters after the churchgoers had forgotten about the whole thing.

It's an important and powerful aspect to activism, protest, and community involvement that I've never heard anyone clearly and honestly discuss - choosing your actions according to your own limitations.

This isn't about whether or not it's right or wrong to dress up like a religious leader and hand out sexual aids that everyone knows the real leaders would never come near, it's about whether or not choosing to take that action is something I am going to do.

Like I said, I know the guy in the costume - and, knowing him, it did not surprise me that he did what he did. That's not an insult, that's merely an honest evaluation of personality. He is outgoing, creative, and a born performer who loves a laugh (aka: a Ham).

However, he is not me.

As he was telling me about this whole escapade on the bus ride home, he mentioned there being debate between people active in the condom-distribution circles. Debate about whether or not they should change their usual way of doing things, and whether or not they should all don priests costumes and pass out rubbers on Sunday morning.

Why is it that people see something that works (in whatever way that catches their eye) and then decide to do everything in their power to recreate the event and co-opt the attention? Are we going to see safe-sex activists walking around in the new uniform of the cause...a long black frock?

It takes a lot to get publicity in this country anymore. Sometimes I think that the news that doesn't come to the big newspapers and radio/tv stations via the usual means is just made up for filler. (note: It has been pointed out to me that making up filler IS the usual means.) Anyone looking to 'get the word out there' has to work long and hard to find a way at pulling together a little attention and a few photos that end up on the 3 page of the local weekly.

But, that does not mean that everyone has to step into line and start jumping on the heresy bandwagon because it worked for this guy...he got in the newspapers! It's not a formula to be recreated and handed about like some kind of pre-packaged aspirin pack.

In fact, if anyone is going to actually achieve change in whatever area of life they think needs to see changing, then they are going to have to spend less time knocking over reporters and more time knocking on doors.

An entertaining man playing the court jester with the razor-edged wit gets the issue into the headlines and stirs up conversation around the water coolers and the coffee pots. It is a beginning, an opening, and an opportunity for discussion and conversation that could lead to action. It is NOT a definitive or wide reaching action in and of itself.

Safe sex, child molestation and the difficulties Priests have with the responsibilities and lifestyles imposed upon them by the church (something which is seldom truly discussed because it's such a touchy issue within the church itself) are not going to be greatly affected, much less changed, by a single Sunday morning protest.

My guess is that these issues would not be greatly affected by an entire year of Sunday morning protests.

What will change things (the word things being a very wide reaching and vague term) is the interaction people have with one another. It's the heart to heart conversations and the advice gained from someone who has experience with whatever it is you're going through. It's the long slow walk of human relationships and interaction that causes change.

Publicity causes discussion and discussion can lead to interaction, which can result in a relationship, which will, over time, affect change.

And that brings me back to the he-is-not-me comment...I do not say that I would not do what he did because I disprove. I say that I would not do it because it is not suited to who and what I am. When it comes down to it, every one of us has our skills, talents, objectives, and hang ups. We have our limits, and we have our lines that we just can't seem to stop pushing. We are not all cut out for the rubber gloves, handfuls of rubbers, and shouting at churchgoers thing.

It seems both counterproductive and dangerous to assume that when a method works for one person, that it must be recreated and transformed into standard procedure. Activist are active in life and community because they would like to see things improve, or modify, or stop, or...whatever. There is something about the world that they have made a goal of affecting.

To say that the goal is best met by following this one example disrespects the possibilities presented by each individual considering involvement. To suggest that because I was not wearing a nun costume and standing on the same street corner that early morning means that I do not *really* support the cause is equally disrespectful and ridiculous.

To suggest that I (or anyone like myself) should recreate the action taken when the prospect of being that kind of rude on ANYone's holy ground simply does not sit well with me (personally), is to suggest that I be untrue to myself and prove my dedication by whoring myself out to the community that has taken up the cause.

Strong words?

Whatever political, social, religious, or activist bent you may be, this statement is applicable to you and your community - cookie cutter action is a disaster waiting to happen. Developing your human resources means finding out who the people around you are to the point of getting a feel for where their boundaries and limitations might be.

Limitations are not weaknesses, they are an indicator of where a person belongs - of where they are most affective and, therefore, strong.

I have been known to do many things over the years, some of which I regret. However, that has left me with the skills provided by experience, and the ability to be comfortable with someone else going through their own experiences. My Sunday-morning black-cloaked friend did what he needed to do, and that was not an action that I would take for myself, but that does not mean I am without the ability to act.

And, ultimately, that is the point that I have been trying to get to throughout this whole thing - there is more to change than front-page photographs, and there is more to action then the antics that made the front page. We all have a role to play, as well as a responsibility to know (or learn) what that role is (while respecting the roles of those around us).

I would not do what you have done because I am not you. It is simple and it is true.

...and let god sort 'em out

2005-12-15T10:45:00.000-05:00

"Tookie" Williams' life of regret
Editorial
The Seattle Times
12/15/2005

There isn't anything particularly new or moving about this editorial. it's for the death penalty and it states that convicted murder, gang co-founder, and thief Stanley "Tookie" Williams was justly executed.

While I find the 'gang co-founder' title amusing (Will there be a new section to the business profiles pages? Will we be seeing founders of money-making gangs listed beside the founders of money-making local businesses?...you know, there's further commentary possible there...)...

As I was saying, I found that one item amusing, but the rest of it was the same thing I've seen published on this issue since I became aware of the issue. Much like abortion, the death penalty seems to pit people against one another so that they can shout the same things at each other across the picket line...over and over and over.

Quite frankly, I'm divided on the issue. On the one hand, i tend to think that if someone is to dangerous to be allowed on the streets, then they are to dangerous to live. However, that is highly colored by the fact that I myself cannot think of anything more horribly torturous than spending the rest of my life in prison.

Everyone has their opinion of what defines inhumane treatment or justifiable punishment. That's what makes laws so tricky and aggravating - a community (in this country most particularly, but in others as well, I'm sure) consists of a wide and varied combination of people and beliefs. Where Quakers and Buddhists define killing as wrong (under all circumstances), Muslims and many Christians feel that it's both justifiable and necessary (and, at times, mandated by god). How, exactly, does one come up with a fair and justifiable punishment in a culture and society with such drastically differing opinions on what is, or is not, fair and justifiable.

So, that leaves each of us to our own decisions based on our own experiences and beliefs.

As previously stated, I would prefer execution over decades of imprisonment; therefore, I tend to think that execution is more humane a punishment than life - but that's just me. And, considering the fact that i have never been imprisoned, I might change my mind, were I to be incarcerated.

I have not been there, therefore I do not know.

But, the one thing that I seem to see everyone agreeing on is the fact that not enough is being done to change the things that result in people being placed on death row in the first place. Granted, every once in a great while someone will be born with *something* that causes them to act in inexplicably violent ways. however, those are not the norm. Neither are people who break the law just because they know they can (well...unless you want to get into white collar crime...but when was the last time you saw someone executed for embezzlement?). No, people go down the road that leads them to the chair through a collection of influences, opportunities, pressures, abuses, and the basic need and desire to survive.

"Sending a message" by way of punishment doesn't work because you aren't telling anyone anything they don't already know. You're just getting off on the power that you hold - and everyone you hand out sentences to is well aware of it.

So, was it right or was it wrong to execute Stanley "Tookie" Williams?

I don't know.

Was "Tookie" placed in a situation, and environment, or a place of desperation that could have been changed? Could something have been done to direct him toward co-founding a church, or a business, or a non-profit organization, or a political organization, instead of a gang?

I don't know that either.

But, if one were to look into his life and identify things that are blatantly ignored in favor of catching and killing the people who reach the end of the worst of their run...then the ignorance is a crime against humanity and the point of commonality that all persons involved in this debate can, and should, focus on.

Now that's a man with a machine!

2005-12-14T23:38:00.000-05:00

My Robot can Shoot Fire
by Kari Lynn Dean
Wired
09/2005

An Ironworker in Alaska created a flame throwing exoskeleton that is able to walk (albeit in tiny and slow steps). Now he's working on a second version with fewer flaws and more capabilities (like better movement and speed, I imagine). Carlos Owens (the designer) is also quoted as saying that it would be a defining moment in sports to see machines like these fighting in an arena.

Of course, Carlos spent many hours and many days and many dollars on this first prototype - which is why he no longer has a girlfriend.

Perhaps she left because she never saw him, or maybe it was because (according to this article) he sees no sense in creating a giant robot unless you can use it to blow stuff up with it.

Or, maybe it was because she wasn't a geek.

From the mind of a geek girl:
He designed and built, from scratch, his own giant robotic exoskeleton, and you LEFT him? He was building a giant robot and you are complaining about not seeing him? You didn't offer to help? Was he sleeping around or violently abusive or something?

I like the site, but...

2005-12-14T23:11:00.000-05:00

Monkeying with the Web
by Paul Boutin
Wired
09/2005

http://www.greasemonkeyed.com is a firefox browser extension that allows you to modify webpages as they are being downloaded. There are designs to download (to filter out ads or content, or to display comparative price quotes when looking at eCommerce sites), and there is the option to write your own JavaScript and modify as needed.

On the one hand, this strikes me as an ultra-control-freak's dream; and, personally, I just don't care about other people's (in)ability to design a page.

However, the articles points out that there are eCommerce companies that have a wary eye out for this software due to it's ability to greatly affect their business models. Standard advertising doesn't apply when the advertising can be removed or modified. Display techniques and 'amazing sales' won't draw in impulse buys when the displays can be eliminated or changed at will (and even before the original is ever seen) or when the super low sales prices is being compared (instantly) to the other really low sales prices available for the same item at other companies.

A lot of eCommerce is still based on brick-and-mortar business models. Those models have been challenged from the beginning of the .Com bubble, but as technology continues to change and options available to participants in the Internet experience (the terms 'consumers' or 'users' or 'customers' or any similar words just don't seem to fit) continue to increase, companies are going to have to reconsider what it is that draws people to them. What separates one company from another?

Or, perhaps it isn't a matter of separating as much as it is one of maintaining a consistent flow of high and low that produces more sales via the discount shopper options (e.g.: compare all prices all of the time) for those items you have to much of, while providing the kind of customer service that keeps people who prefer to simply get everything done in one shot coming back to the same website, every time. It's like setting up a business that's half stock market investment and half old-fashioned back-country general store.

Or, perhaps people will have to find new ways of making face to face contact with customers who are becoming more distant and more unreal as the old complaint about being a number instead of a name becomes not only an accepted reality...but an expected one. When customers are stunned, put off, or offended when a company asks for their name instead of their number, that may be the moment when we are all living with eCommerce to firmly embedded into our lives.

But, then again, maybe not.

The creation of new technology means the creation of new social, business, personal, and infrastructure systems. Change changes things. That's just the way it is. So, like it or not, technology is going to continue to change and that means that business will have to do the same.

While I have no brilliant, bottom line, this-is-how-it-must-be-done ideas, I do know that companies and individuals are both going to start experimenting with hundreds (if not thousands) of ideas, because the nature of change and interaction on the internet requires it.

How does the saying go?...Adapt or Die.

Migratory Puzzle

2005-12-13T21:50:00.000-05:00

Communities Without Borders
by David Bacon
The Nation
10/24/2005

While reading this article one big glaring piece of truth jumped up and slapped me across the face. That truth is the fact that I have this perception of Immigration and Refugee issues that simply isn't true - that they are actually quite simple with obvious and logical conclusions (as long as everyone is willing to be logical and fair...or, at least, nice).

David Bacon described several things about illegal immigrants in the United States that *should* have been obvious to me, but had never crossed my mind. Primarily, the fact that the forces of circumstance that lead people to move (e.g.: poverty, war, racism, dangerous politics, educational or financial ambition, etc) are primarily things that are beyond an individual's (and a community's) control. However, just because people are forced to move does not mean they a) give up their ties to their homeland, b) lose connection to others from their place of origination, or c) have either intention or desire to give up language and/or culture due to a forced relocation.

A and B are the two that stuck out at me the most because the article examines Oaxaca's Mixtec, Zapotec and Triqui laborers and these communities have been traveling north for many years now. Each stop results in a new community being formed, like a long linked chain, and each new movement to a better (or just different) place results in an addition to that chain and an extension of the communication that passes along it. These people consider themselves a single community with International locations and wish to be treated accordingly. What happens to their relatives in Mexico concerns and affects the people living in the United States...and so on all the way back to the place of their origination.

There is also the fact that once these communities are set up, they are a community that has put down roots - not a collection of temporary workers making a tour of duty of any particular country. They are moving for safety, security, and a better life for their families. They are looking for places to settle into and call home, because going back to the place that used to be home is not possible.

Of course, if it were possible to go back, that isn't, necessarily, what anyone in one of the communities along the chain would choose to do. Settling in and creating a community means putting down roots that involve a place as much as a collection of people - anyone who has ever talked about their hometown, or discussed feeling (un)welcome after moving to a new town, or purchased a home and started making all of those life decisions as a homeowner (instead of renter) can tell you that putting time into creating a life and developing stability changes things. It makes new homes, which affectively extends a people's landbase without destroying the connection between the people whose base had previously been smaller (unless, of course, they choose to break that connection).

It's not just a question of simple economics or politics or end-the-war-and-let-them-go-home issues. It's about change affecting people, location, identity, and connection. Making these kinds of moves changes individuals, and the changes to the individuals affects the community - thereby changing both.

Quite frankly, the only idea I had after reading this article (and realizing how little I actually know about this whole issue) was the complete elimination of borders and division between nations (because maintaining a connection to ideas which are actually feasible in reality is important).

Of course, ending wars (particularly those financed by the United States) and political attempts at genocide wouldn't hurt.

But, none of that changes the fact that people are already settled into new places. The water has been stirred and the sand and leaves and dirt and sticks that were previously quietly and contentedly laying along the bottom have been pushed into a dark and dirty mass of movement and change. The pieces fall where ever they will and there is no way to force it all back to where it was before the water was stirred.

So, while working toward solutions that help to reduce (or eliminate) the need for migration from one's home is both important and ideal, it does nothing to address the fact that there are people already here. Stopping the future flow does not force previous entrants to return to the place of their ancestry.

Nor should it. Refugees are a byproduct of war. If the United States is going to stick it's fingers into games of war and power all over the globe, then the United States will simply have to find a way to deal with the refugees that result from that involvement.

It could almost be said that, whenever you attack a people, you are adding them to your community - whether you like it or not.

Of course, that last statement provides large amounts of room for debate and discussion, but I think it expresses what I'm trying to say in the context of this entry.

That being - this issue isn't as simple as it might initially seem and involves far more responsibility on several countries parts.

A Dead Hero is a Compliant Hero

2005-12-11T09:58:00.000-05:00

Pat Tillman, Our Hero
by Dave Zirin
The Nation
10/24/2005

Pat Tillman was an NFL star who joined the Army and became an Army Ranger. He went to Iraq and fought, but he did not agree with the war, would not allow the Army to make a recruitment poster boy out of him, and was a fan of Noam Chomsky. He believed the war was illegal and had an interview with Noam Chomsky scheduled upon his return from his tour of duty in Iraq.

That meeting with Noam Chomsky never happened because Pat Tillman was killed in an 'accident' of friendly fire - and both Bush and the military immediately took hold of the situation and turned Tillman into the recruitment poster boy that Tillman had declined to be while alive.

The family is outraged about being used for photo opportunities by the people who arranged for the murder of their son, members of the press (Ann Coulter, specifically is quoted) are angry that they're initial portrayal of the American-hero-ideal-patriot wasn't the GI Joe doll they'd made him out to be, and Bush and the military are not happy about the facts coming to light (but, really, did you expect anything else?).

Historically speaking, taking a soldier and sacrificing him (or her) in the course of battle, to meet wider reaching objectives, is nothing new. Governments and military leaders have been doing it for as long as they've been fighting battles. No one should be surprised that something like this *could* happen.

But, surprised and feeling the cold shivers that raise the hair on the back of your neck at the moment that you realize that the very people who you'd initially trusted to serve and protect the greater good of everyone and everything you know have just shown themselves to be ruthlessly manipulative in ways that benefit no one save themselves....those are two different things.

It's not that it's difficult to imagine powerful people using murder as a political tool and more than it's difficult to imagine governments using media and propaganda to sway the mass perception of reality (thereby significantly controlling the attitude and actions of that same population). What's difficult is dealing with that one solitary moment in time when you realize that it's not something that 'powerful people' are capable of doing - it's something that those in charge of country in which you yourself live are actively (and callously) doing right now.

It's that transfer from possibility to reality that pins a person's toes to the ground and shed shocks of fear through their system, temporarily immobilizing them as they attempt to process the truth. It's that moment of movement from one reality to the next that forces some people into outrage, some people into terror, and others into absolute denial.

Us? Here? Now? But...why?

I could make all sorts of comparisons to centuries of leaders and nations whose names will live in infamy for as long as the current text books and factual accounts of human history remain the accepted norm (which is not to say that those leaders were kind gentile merciful folk...just pointing out that history is written by those in power), but that is something that anyone could do at any point in time with little more than a high school history book as a resource. We all know the stories, we all know the insulting comparisons, and we all know why they apply - so, there's really no sense in going over it again.

What I will point out is that Bush has been very interested in using the issue of terrorism to increase 'national security' to the point of being able to track every citizen's movement and personal decision. It's getting to the point where a person can't sneeze without the government recording the fact, somehow and somewhere. While I still believe that the gathering of that much information results in a wall of white noise that produces nothing useful when searching for a sense of reality or truth...the story of Pat Tillman is a perfect, current, undeniable example of how all of that information gathering *does* become useful to the powers that be...

Bush and/or the military are laying out their next maneuver and realize...We need a terrorist, or a hero, or a victim, or an attractive woman who mysteriously turns up missing, or someone living a lifestyle we don't approve of to be dragged through the media or...

Every single one of us are becoming detailed and instantly accessible characters in an elaborate role playing game with Bush acting as the Grand Master (or whatever title you care to give him). It's not a matter of someone was in the wrong place at the wrong time, or was exceptionally well know and therefore useful; it's a matter of criteria being entered into a database and a selection of possibilities appear.

Ask yourself, when they pull your name out of their database and star rolling that 12 sided dice, what dragons will you be facing and will you have any weaponry at all to fight them?

Evolutionary theory is the primary cause of delinquency among youth

2005-12-10T18:04:00.000-05:00

Darwin on Trial
by Eyal Press
The Nation
11/28/2005

Dover Pennsylvania was in the midst of a school reform battle. Some the-only-truth-is-in-the-bible believers decided that teaching (or even mentioning) evolution or Charles Darwin was presenting inaccurate information that confused young people and urged them toward atheism.

The best part of this article is Eyal's comment: "...it was hard not to view the dust-up over intelligent design as a tragic illustration of how energy could be poured into other problems is wasted on symbolic issues of comparatively minor significance."

That pretty much sums up my opinion on the Evolution-Intelligent Design-Creationism debate. Believe what you want to believe, simply finding, or being provided, information does not mean that a complete change in opinions, outlook, point of view, or religious/cultural participation will occur (beyond the control of anyone involved). On the whole, human beings (including young ones) are not that easily swayed, much less changed.

However, there is always the simple fact that the fastest and easiest way to get a teenager to do (or read) something is to forbid them (individually or as a whole) from doing it.

So, are the Bible-thumpers against...or for...the exploration of evolutionary theories amongst the area youth?

Water filtration is news?

2005-12-09T20:27:00.000-05:00

The Big Gulp
by Tom McNichol
Wired
08/2005

This article is entertaining, granted, but I kept wondering where the amazing scientific discovery in all of this was. Purifying urine and extracting the water is not a new concept. In fact, when I was going through my junior-high-survivalist phase (read: I read a lot of books about what to do if you get lost in the woods or the desert for months on end and hiked around the woods a lot...the hiking around the woods was neither new nor ever abandoned...but I digress) I ran across many descriptions of the usefulness of urine (particularly in the case of desert survival) and ways to (re)claim the water contained therein.

While the Following article jokingly dances around the subject...
http://outside.away.com/outside/gear/gearguy/200410/20041004.html

I have spoken to more than one backpacker who had either tried using a standard filtration device on urine, or was confident that it could be done in a worst-case scenario. Granted, it's not evian water, but we're talking about survival here.

Also, there are many ingenious ways to use the age old scientific system of purification through either boiling or evaporation.

Water is kinda important to life and general human survival. Finding it, purifying it, saving it, and reusing it are centuries old traditions and knowledge.

Also, NASA has been sending astronauts and gallons upon gallons of fresh water into space for decades now...

First question - what took them so long to think that, maybe, recycling water might be a good idea?

Second question - did they really think this was a brilliant new idea, or did they pull out a few backpacking catalogs and modify the equipment? (In secret, of course.)

Kiss the toes of Hollywood

2005-12-09T20:16:00.000-05:00

Hollywood to E.A.: Bring It On
by Duff McDonald
Wired
08/2005

Electronic Arts (E.A.) is the biggest name in sports based video games - including those featuring (or centered on) sports stars. So, E.A. decided to try it's hand at movie-based themes.

They're not doing so well. Why? Bottom Line? They don't suck up enough.

apparently working with Hollywood elite requires putting aside all professionalism and standard business based boundaries.

I am a stage actress (though sorely out of practice) and a voice actress (nothing to do with phone sex thankyouverymuch) and a woman with a love for the theater. What evil demon took hold of this art and twisted it into the deformity that is US Entertainment?

I shutter to think of it and continue to refuse to either hook up cable or turn on the television. I still go to see movies - but I'm very selective and often disappointed.

In my travels and interactions with people all over the country, the best artists (that I have known) have been very real, very dedicated, and very down to earth. They might be strange and maintain an appearance that simply screams 'an artist stands here!' but they have that clam, slow, moment-to-moment dedication to the experience of creation interwoven with the objective to improve personal skills and abilities.

As far as I can tell (from my long-distance observation) none of the true-artist spirit exists in Hollywood. It's like a giant egoistic vampire...or something.

I'm getting a little over the top here. I guess it's just annoying when people know they have power and decide to prove that they can wield it by demanding to be treated as something other than human.

Let them make their own damned games.

The pen vs the rock pounding

2005-12-09T20:01:00.000-05:00

Asteroids are coming!
By Patrick Di Justo
Wired
08/2005

For whatever reason I've been hearing a lot of people talk about Nasa's multimillion dollar pen. Pens can't write in zero gravity, so NASA developed a special Space pen that can. The Russian cosmonauts shrugged it off and brought a handful of pencils, but the US astronauts had to have their pens.

So much potential for useful research and activity in the universe and we've spent time, energy, technological effort, and funding (which NASA never seems to stop crying about) on a PEN.

I am fascinated with outer space. I am intrigued by the possibilities for colonization and exploration. I have no problem using a pencil while traveling to other worlds.

Obviously, there are times when I am highly UNimpressed with NASA and it's affiliations. However, NASA has turned it's focus to locating asteroids and determining which ones have a real potential of hitting the earth. It's a long shot that an asteroid will hit, and there are no known asteroids that pose any real threat within the lifetime of any single person living today. But, it doesn't take more than one relatively small asteroid to cause significant damage and potentially harmful global affects on the planet. So, NASA is simply finding them all and sorting out the potentially dangerous from the not-to-worry-about-it's.

This is logical, practical, and useful. This is what fascinates me about science in general and space in particular. This is why I breathed a sigh of relief when I read this article.

Corruption of the consumers

2005-12-09T19:46:00.000-05:00

The uproar over downloads
by Jeff Howe
Wired
8/2005

This is an article everyone should read. It goes over the Federal Court ruling against Grokster and the potential (or just plain this-it-what-it-is) repercussions.

Grokster lost it's case because their internal documentation exhibited the intent to encourage others to break the law.

It's a technological-and-highly-commercial twist on those old Corruption of the Youth laws. It's also very useful to big and powerful companies/governments/people/etc who are looking for a way to sue someone out of business.

Of course, Jeff Howe makes a very important point - just because Hollywood took Grokster down, and just because the laws and retribution in the USA are smothering and destroying new possibilities in technology and communication from within, does NOT mean that the geeks in India, or the USSR, or China, or Latin America, or anywhere else in the world, are affected by these laws (or, quite frankly, care).

The United States is powerful and far reaching, but geeks are everywhere and there's only so much US law can do about the kid with the school supplied network connection hooked into her/his laptop somewhere in Vietnam.

Get too arrogant about your power, take down everyone you know who seemingly offends you and, pretty soon, you'll only have hundreds of people you don't know offending you even more. Consider your resources - when it comes down to it, who are you going to negotiate with and what will you have to bring to the table?

Hospitals are doing what???

2005-12-09T19:38:00.000-05:00

In-N-Out Surgery
by Jacob Ward
Wired
08/2005

The general idea is this - hospitals build lots of high tech operating rooms, specialize in non-essential surgery (read: cosmetic surgery), complete the surgery in an average of 112 minutes per case, and then send the patients home per day. The University of Washington Medical Center is boasting up to 20 surgeries per day!

Boasting?

Maybe it's jut me but....there's something very unnerving about fast assembly line surgery. Doctors becoming highly paid factory workers and hospitals turning their focus to profit-providing drive-through surgery seems...wrong?

O.K., so does that mean that people who are un or under insured will just have to wait on that cancerous tumor removal while the hospital focuses it's time on nose jobs?

I wonder if there are any shamans, or small town doctors with black bags and habits of house calls, or old women with decades of knowledge about herbs and the like, hanging around somewhere. I think I'd rather take my chances with old medicine then risk the kind of handling one gets from fast-food and mall-commerce from doctors and their institutions doing everything they can to create the Big-Mac version of health care.

Web search the stars?

2005-12-09T19:34:00.000-05:00

Star Search
by David Shiga
Wired
8/2005

Wayne Rosing has left Google and picked up with the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope. The telescope takes pictures of the sky - lots and lots of them. Rosing is figuring out how to download, catalog, and store all of this data in 10 seconds after download.

The objective? To catalog the sky with telescope provided images of every star, planet, asteroid, and whatever else they happen to find while peering off into space.

Take a picture, mark it's location, give it a name or a number...

Kind of like those tags they put on geese, but on a celestial level.

Not all bacteria is bad

2005-12-09T19:27:00.000-05:00

Turning Bugs into Drugs
-Monya Baker
Wired
8/2005

Drug development is taking a new turn - modifying bacteria to produce medicine in the body while swimming around in it.

In effect, it's the cure of disease through purposeful infection. There's something contrary and almost philosophical about that.

Of course, there's no way to guarantee that the bacteria will remain in their modified state and, once injected into the body, where they go is their decision.

If this is the future of healthcare, perhaps we should all build up a little bacterial karma and cut down on (or stop) the use of anti-bacteria cleaning stuff. After all, if they're swimming in your system with a bone to pick...

Buy your magic swords here

2005-12-09T19:20:00.000-05:00

The Virtual World Gets Real
by Chris Suellentrop
Wired
08/2005

Sony has opened up the first ligit buy-sell-trade site for virtual in-game objects. Whatever your characters needs (including...well...a character) can be had, for a price.

Fascinating.

I can't help but think that people of the world (not all players are US Citizens, mind you) have either gotten overly obsessive, or have proven that we, the human race, have take our commercialism as far as it will go. There are no more trinkets or fads or unique-yet-available-at-WalMart physical property that fills that collective I-own-this need. The physical has been used up and worn out - therefore, we are selling what doesn't really exist (at least, not on the physical plain) and people are busy filling up their virtual space with the property that can't be hand in the physical one.

I have been refusing to play video games for almost 15 years because I get overly-absorbed in them (and I have other things to do, thankyouverymuch). I am beginning to think that was a very wise financial decision.

This town doesn't like you

2005-09-15T06:55:00.000-05:00

Authorities shut down Mexican grocery store
The Sparta Herald
by RENAE SOLINSKY (Staff Writer)
September 6, 2005

Sparta, WI is where I graduated High School. My family purchased an apple orchard and we moved out to farm country when I was a teenager. So, I learned to drive, went to prom, and got my diploma (in between working jobs at Ft. McCoy and putting in plenty of sweat and time on the farm) all in Sparta, WI.

Looking over the local newspaper I ran across this:

"It didn't last long. La Tienda Mexicana, a Mexican grocery located at 515 W. Wisconsin St., was only open for a few months until it was shut down recently by authorities."

According to the short blurb (you have to request a hard copy to read the whole story, so I can only comment on the summary) the local authorities discovered that the owner of the store was "selling false permanent residence cards to illegal immigrants" and they arrested the man for forgery.

My reaction to this was as follows: Not much has changed around there. I'd lay money on the local people (if not the authorities themselves) looking for every possible opportunity to toss the Hispanic people out of town from the very moment that they moved in (that being many moments before they managed to set up shop).

Sparta is not a nice or welcoming place. You'd think they'd have a more open attitude, given how much of their livelihood is based on the military base, but the GIs come into Ft. McCoy for training and then ship out for permanent stationing elsewhere. Some are stations in Sparta, granted, but most of them just pass on through. You might see them at the bars, but that's about it.

When I was living in Seattle and hanging with my first-ever crowd of serious left-wing activists, I found it difficult to look around Seattle and agree with them when they would comment about how 'bad' things were in that city. Granted, a city is a city and there's going to be nasty things happening, but when you've spent some hard time in an area with a Ku Klux Klan membership as wide reaching and as strongly adhered to as the one you'll find in Sparta...The west coast just doesn't seem all that bad.

That said, I'd LOVE to see a bunch of activists (or just in-your-face-stubborn-people) move into Sparta, en-mass...

I would NOT recommend trying what the Mexican Grocery tried - do not go in there alone! Remember the buddy system and keep your backup nearby.

Move into Sparta en mass and start up a whole string of stores: A Mexican grocery, a Soul Food restaurant, a Kosher Deli, an Ethiopian restaurant, a Native American coffee shop, a whole line of newspapers focusing on various minority communities, a gay bar, and/or whatever strikes your fancy. Just take your nationality and set up shop in downtown Sparta.

I'd be willing to bet that more than one GI would be saying "Oh Thank God!" at the presentation of options, and the locals would be digging their nails into their palms until the blood started to flow.

In fact, it would be nice if someone would do that and then respond to this Editorial:

Editorial: Harnessing Hispanic growth
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Posted: Sept. 13, 2005

By providing some up-to-date and real-life examples of what it's like to try and settle into rural Wisconsin. If you want to encourage Hispanic growth, then helping the small grocers stay in business might be a good place to start.

Granted, this grocer (according to the article) broke the law and that's just what happens to people who break the law. But, based on what I know of that town...it might be worth a little investigating. No one is ever going to DO that, because Sparta is barely on the map for Wisconsinites, so anything short of murder doesn't reach the big newspaper radar. But, it would be nice to see it happen.

So, take whatever side you will on the legalities of this case and whether or not a few months in Sparta is indicative of an excellent police force or raging racism. Heck, it might be a little of both.

But, whatever your opinions on the legalities, talk it over with your friends and consider going in there en mass with store front supplies in hand. Gorilla business infiltration I say! Take them over in their main streets and make them eat curry!

Of course, like I said, I have not lived there since 1987, so I could (as always) be wrong.

Get rid of the car

2005-09-13T08:32:00.000-05:00

Northcountry Chronicle - Free Wheeling
By William Marvel
The New Hampshire Gazette
Vol 249, No 24, August 26, 2005

This article got me to thinking about the first time I managed to live without a car. It was when I moved to Seattle and realized that a) the bus service was good enough to not need a car, b) the parking was so horrible (and expensive) that driving did not make sense, and c) I could rent a car anytime I actually needed one.

So, I ditched the car and lived for a couple of years sans-vehicle.

Then I left Seattle and found myself back in the Midwest where it's not possible to live without a car. I also found myself faced with HUGE insurance rates because I had dared to let my insurance policy lapse...for whatever reason, I was not aware of the you-are-required-to-pay-for-insurance-if-you-have-a-license
regardless-of-whether-or-not-you-own-a-car laws. There is something inherently evil and decidedly wrong about Insurance...but that's a discussion for another day.

Now, I'm living in the big city of Philadelphia and getting by sans-vehicle, once again. While Philly is no where near as nice as Seattle when it comes to public transit, it's possible to get around without a set of wheels, and so I do.

The experience of living without a car has led me to believe that there is more than environmental issues at stake when addressing the issue of getting the traffic congestion down. Ride-your-bike campaigns are nice, but think about it in terms of lifestyle issues. People who don't have cars are often faced with difficulties getting/keeping employment. People who have their vehicles taken away from them (for DUIs, medical issues, or age) are significantly crippled in their ability to get around (or get employment). People who can't afford to buy a new car, or keep their current car up and running, have to deal with latenesses at work (or missed work days) because the car broke down (again), while having the financial burden of fixing the thing (again) piled on top of them (and directly affecting their ability to buy a better car).

Anyone who has ever had to rely on a cab, last minute (particularly in non-metropolitan United States), knows this is not always a viable option.

The reliance we place on the vehicle affects more than the environment - it directly affects individuals and families by virtue of income level. Take a look at the Hurricane and the number of people who died because they did not own a car and the city would not bus them out. Will anyone do a study, or bring the city to court, because of that?

Personally, I am of the opinion that people who are working to reduce car traffic for environmental issues need to look at this from the realistic perspective of daily human life, and then team up with people working on poverty issue. We, as a country, need to find ways to reduce the NEED for vehicles in the everyday life.

I am of the opinion that we need to develop small businesses that are physically set up so that people are living and working out of the same building (or the same property) - imagine a family who lives above the store, and you've got the general idea. By living and working in the same building you've accomplished the following: a) the person/family owns their own business and are employed by their own wits/pleasure (read: you can't get any more American-dream than that), and b) the person/family is free to own a vehicle if they choose, but their employment does not (necessary) *require* it (read: if the car breaks down, you're still going to get to work that day).

But, of course, that's just one example. Changing the NEED for vehicles has to do with meeting the needs that require vehicles in different ways. It also means reducing the stress on the life of the average American by significantly cutting down the amount of time Mom's/Dad's Taxi is on the road.

However, realistically making this happen requires a lot more than just increased bus service and campaigns encouraging people to ride their bikes.

Haiti

2005-09-11T19:48:00.000-05:00

A father is gone, guilty of being Haitian
By Ana Menendez
The Miami Herald
September 10, 2005

Add Haiti to the list of countries where there are things going on that I don't know anywhere near enough about. In this case, however, the US has not limited it's foreign policy to people living in that country, it's extending that to non-criminals from Haiti, who are living in this country without approved paperwork.

No protection offered if you're Haitian, no matter how bad things are in that country, and never mind the family and children you are leaving behind.

I know there are people who have powerful opinions on what the US should do with people who are in this country without the proper legal documentation. But the thing that I'm noticing (the more articles, magazines, and columns I get through), is that the government selectively applies the laws already in place, and conveniently changes the rules (just enough to avoid getting to close to actually creating a new law), according to the race or the nationality of the people in question. Ultimately, it always comes down to this - what are the powers that be getting from this particular country and the people we are taking in from, or deporting back to, them?

Why is the US fixed and focused on sending Haitians, specifically, back to Haiti?

El Salvador

2005-09-11T06:36:00.000-05:00

At the Edges of Empire, a Letter from El Salvador
by Peter Davis
The Nation
July 11, 2005

One again, I find myself reading about a country that I know virtually nothing about. It's strangely disconcerting how a person can travel so much, and still know so little. But, having never been to El Salvador (specifically), that's not all that surprising.

Peter Davis covers the usual things - the money that the US spends on supporting violent and nasty dictatorships, the gangs that developed in Los Angeles and now have a heavy influence on the streets of El Salvador, the drug trade that the US supports through it's efforts in the 'drug war'...It seems like we have as International Policy with so many nations that these things have become something of a standard-procedure.

But, like I said, all of that is the same in El Salvador as it is in the-gods-know-how-many-other-countries.

The one thing that stood out to me as being unique was the Principal Export and the primary source of income for the entire country - people. Specifically, people who move to the United States and work as maids, house painters, construction workers, and other manual labor jobs. Apparently, if the US deported every citizen of El Salvador today, the entire economy of El Salvador would collapse. There's not enough work inside the country to survive on, so they send their people to work as servants in the US, and wait for the checks to come in.

I'm waiting for the day the US collapses under it's own arrogant weight. We export jobs (manufacturing jobs, tech jobs, everything you can imagine), while importing people from other countries to act as migrant laborers or servants. The tech industry is effectively moving huge amounts of data, support, and (therefore) control of servers and services to India, people from Mexico are picking the crops, and people from El Salvador are cleaning our houses.

Ok, so when this country has managed to make the entire world it's servant, how long do you think it will take before the world realizes jut how much power they have over this country?

Given the standard-procedure in foreign policy (mentioned earlier) I don't tend to see this as a bad thing. Sometimes a good beating is required when taking a person (or a group) down a notch or two. And sometimes being taken down a notch or two is required for survival.

But where's the logic? If we send all of the jobs off shore, who has money to pay for the servants to come here? And, if the people coming up this way to find work and money suddenly find that the well has run dry, then where does that history of foreign policy leave us?

In some ways this is looking like the precursor to the French Revolution - but on a global scale. And, if my emotionally charged response is accurate, on that point, there won't be much but blood or bones left in this country, when all is said and done.

People like to talk about revolution inside this country. I'm waiting for it to come from the outside.

History, Race, Poverty, and Rage

2005-09-10T21:33:00.000-05:00

Racism Rebooted: Philadelphia, Mississippi, Then and Now
by Gary younge
The Nation
July 11, 2005

Racism is something that has been front and center in mind mind for a long time, but it's been staking out squatters rights to the forefront of my brain for close to a year now. So, when I saw the title of this article, I started to read with a certain amount of trepidation mixed with curiosity...primarily because I was confused by the title. This article is about a town called Philadelphia, which is located in Mississippi. It is NOT about the city of Philadelphia (located in Pennsylvania) and the state of Mississippi, as I originally thought.

That said, this covers the state of relations between the white and the black communities (it must be noted that the Native American community is mentioned, one time, and then ceases to exist in any and all aspects in this article), several decades after the 1966 murders of one teenage boy and three civil rights activists got the town placed on the map. (The movie Mississippi Burning is based on events that occurred in this town.)

There are a few things about this article that bother me.

First, the people interviewed and discussed are all poor, desperately poor - blacks and whites both. There is some commentary made that the rest of the world wishes to cast the murders in the area as something poor people do to poor people, but the author never really goes on to prove that is NOT the case. He just states that outsiders, who essentially never bother to come to Mississippi and find out what the real deal is, have that sort of thing to say.

It seems to me that it would be both fair and important to point out that the rich folk had something to do with this too - assuming rich folk can be found in this region. I don't know the area, so I can't comment from experience, but I had this feeling, as I was reading, that an entire class (as in Upper) was being pointedly left out of the discussion.

I once read that the only people who pay any attention to whether or not something is illegal are the decidedly middle class. The rich are convinced they will buy themselves out of anything, and the poor have nothing to lose, one way or another. When you're talking about murder and violence that is centered around an issue whose crux is based in the control and subjugation of an entire people...you cannot leave the money people out of that. There's to much to be gained from a desperate, poor, and terrified population being kept at constant and ready access at all times.

Which brings me to my second concern with this article. The author mentions that the one thing that will (most likely) bring the people of this town together is the ability to make money off of the past. Historical tours and tourism for people who want to view the nasty-south and the horrid conditions and the place where such tragedies occur (because these things can't be found in one's own backyard...we all know how important vacations are to perpetuating that safe feeling of its-not-here), is always an effective (albeit morbid) draw for the American on vacation.

I can only gather, from the quotes taken from residents and the tone of the article, that the author is not impressed with this. There is this sense that the people of Philadelphia, MS should be pulling together to fight racism - just because.

Well, ok, granted, that would be nice. However, I would add the following experience to this scenario. Having lived, worked, and otherwise been intensely associated with the community of recovering addicts in more than one region of this country, I can provide more than one example of people who came in, angry and hateful and ready to kick butt (I am referring to both white and black). But, addiction had already taken everything they had to give and the anon programs were the only way they could see surviving, much less salvaging their lives. After time, trouble, and sticking around for no other reason than the sheer and simple fact that leaving meant dying (or prison) and associating with the people in the program (whatever their race, religion, sexual identity, gender, creed, etc) meant living (or freedom); and changes occurred. Significant changes occurred.

Now, I'm not talking about people turning into saints or the next Buddha or anything. I'm talking about people you never would have imagined coming together in friendship and solidarity. People actually reaching a point where they considered each other to be more than friends - they had each other's back (as it were).

Of course, al of this (from what I understand) took a very long time and angry words (if not fists) were exchanged frequently along the way, but they had a common goal and a common need that brought them together and they stuck it out. Thus, they were changed.

OK, this is all sounding idealistic and wonderful to anyone who has either never hung with that crowd or have not seen it in the recovery circles they happen to traverse. All I can say is that it's out there, it's happened, and it's based upon the mutual need for survival.

This is the one common element people in Philadelphia, MS have with the people in the recovery communities - the common and mutual need to survive. Personally, if the community comes together to build commerce so that they have jobs to support themselves with, I see nothing wrong with that. My hope is that survival will force them to keep coming together, to keep working together, and to have those arguments with the eventual discussions where apologies are expressed. Over all of the places I've lived, and all of the people I've met, and all of the things I've seen (and I am not still water when it comes to a base location), that consistent and forced interaction (when infused with a mutual and honest desire to improve yourself and your life), is the only thing that really and truly addresses and combats racism, violence, misogyny, and prejudice. Or, perhaps more accurately expressed - it's the only thing that I have actually seen work.

Now, having said all of that, I just want to make it clear that I do NOT believe that the murders in that town (dating all the way back to the 1960s) should be allowed to go free. I am not saying the past should be ignored or let alone. I'm saying that the future involves day-to-day work that is tedious, hard, frustrating, infuriating, and annoying; but it's also greatly enhanced by both a sense of common purpose and common need. The past should neither be forgotten, but neither should it be turned into the only thing an individual (or a community sees). We learn from the past, we don't live there. And that's a hard line to walk when you're dealing with communities of people who have a violent history to reconcile.

Of course, as always, this is my own opinion, so take it for what it's worth.

Just some books to read

2005-09-10T21:06:00.000-05:00

The Heritage Foundation
by Daniel Lazare
The Nation
June 13, 2005

and

Just My Imagination
by Terry Eagleton
The Nation
June 13, 2005

Cover some books I would like to add to my reading list.

Thomas Jefferson: Author of America
by Christopher Hitchens
Is a not-so-pretty portrait of one of the founding fathers. As such, it sounds like it has more accurate information than the glowing do-no-wrong propaganda that so often makes its way into school history textbooks. Truth is a good thing. We need to support more of it.

The Hungry Tide
by Amitav Ghosh
Is a novel, set in India, that was completed before the tsunami ripped through that part of the world, but (according to Eagleton) describes a tsunami ripping through that region with an eerie similarity to the descriptions that people actually gave after this occurred in real life. I know practically nothing about tsunamis (including their frequency), but I know what it is to live in Tornado country in Wisconsin. I have described the skies and air right before a tornado hits (strange green skies and unnaturally still air mean that it's long past the time to go underground), and people who have never lived trough a tornado in that region invariably think I'm making it up. So, I'm inclined to believe that the author's description *may* be based on simple personal experience that we simply don't think about in this country.

However, that said, the novel itself sounds fascinating with a lovely devotion to words. So, I've decided that I must read it.

How to create a perfect society in 300 words or less

2005-09-10T20:57:00.000-05:00

Just My Imagination
by Terry Eagleton
The Nation
June 13, 2005

A book review of:
Picture Imperfect: Utopian thought for an Anti-Utopian Age
by Russell Jacoby

This is a fascinating essay, but I must admit that I'm still unclear as to whether or not the book would prove to be as interesting a read.

The core idea that I keyed in on is the thought that it's not possible to create a Utopian Society by planning it out. The trick is to write a general outline-style framework and let go of any ideas about how that framework will be filled.

This makes sense (to me) because giving people realistic suggestions for what needs to be worked on, or changed, in the immediate moment (read: how we are going to help you, as an individual, better take care of your family by raising workers rises/rights) is something people can latch onto and relate to. It's something that relates to the immediate moment, and the immediate moment is what every person, regardless of opinion or party affiliation, can relate to.

Tell people that every one of us will wear green stocking from 6pm to midnight to show our solidarity for the earth...and you'll starting seeing people drop away.

This is one of those common sense things that make you go ah-ha! when you read it because it's the kind common sense that most people just don't stop to think about.

Everyone gets Viagra

2005-09-10T20:49:00.000-05:00

Stiffed
by Katha Pollitt
The Nation
June 13, 2005

Medicaid has been covering the cost of supplying convicted sex criminals with Viagra.

Meanwhile, birth control and sexual enhancement drugs for women are being debated as sinful and items that should be banned.

The article does not mention the ban many states has on selling sex toys (read: vibrators and dildos with the primary purpose of supplying a woman an orgasm), while any items created for men (exclusively) aren't, apparently, an issue in the eyes of the persons who worked to place these bans into affect

OK. So what's next? Female circumcision, to ensure that no woman, anywhere in this country, will have to suffer the sin that is physical pleasure? I'm sure they'll be careful to combined that with viagra for the men, and fertility drugs (in place of birth control) for the women, so that every man can strut around bragging about how 'viral' he is.

Maybe I'll run for President

2005-09-10T20:38:00.000-05:00

A Revolution in American Nuclear Policy
by Jonathan Schell
The Nation
June 13, 2005

and

There's Their Way or the Galloway
by Alexander Cockburn
The Nation
June 13, 2005

These articles literally lay side-by-side in The Nation, and their combined effect is to make my want to throw up my hands and say "Forget this noise, I'm running for president myself."

On the one hand there's an explanation of how the one primary difference between the current Bush in the White House and previous Presidents is that fact that he see nuclear fire power as something to use. (Well, hell, we have it just SITTING there, don't we...?)

On the other hand, there's a description of the Democrats as a whole and their general lack of fire-in-the-belly conviction. No one is free from the political milk-toast syndrome of trying to appease everyone, including the Republicans.

Side note: Sometimes I can't help but see Republicans as the gun-toting violent alcoholic in the family who is constantly supported by the co-dependent and ever there to make everyone feel better Democrats.

But, I've worked with the Greens and I can't help but feel that they aren't ready to take over national office just yet. I rather wish they had a stronger listing of people in office in smaller political arenas, because this country needs a third option in a really bad way. But, they don't (or, at least, didn't, when I was working with them, so they still represent the up-in-coming third party).

I am of the belief that we need some change made in this country, but essays like these stir up my own fire, because I find it hard to imagine the current system producing any change at all. Therefore, it brings to mind the old adage - if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself.

Microsoft has become what it destroyed

2005-09-10T20:24:00.000-05:00

How Linux Could Overthrow Microsoft
by Charles Ferguson
Technology Review
June 2005

According to this article, Microsoft went up against (and took down) IBM, back in the day. Now, Microsoft IS IBM of that day (entrenched in red tape, politics, and corporate traditions that are getting in the way of product development), and Linux is the upstart that may very well take them down.

While I would love to see Microsoft taken down a notch or two, I can't help but wonder if this isn't just the same cycle repeating itself, one more time. Linux has some avid followers, and it's based in revolutionary thought and technique...so were dozens of other companies, Microsoft being one of them, during the start up phase.

According to this article, Linux needs to become big business in order to compete. Does competing mean losing the soul of what built the now-profit-focused creators, developers, and supporters of Linux?

Can this company keep it's culture, methodology, and community involvement in-tact, or is this just one more example of how business economics, and the introduction of the dollar as a primary goal, has this huge and overwhelming power to change, distort, and borg-like-morph a company, a product, and an employee base into the same thing as everyone and everything around it?

Artists who go commercial cease to be artists and become, instead, graphic designers and corporate design contractors (put more bluntly: doctor's office art pushers).

I am rather of the opinion that programmers, computer experts, hackers, and other members of the technology industries are exactly the same.

My idea is my idea and you can't have it

2005-09-10T20:07:00.000-05:00

The Creators Own Ideas
by Richard Epstein
Technology Review
June 2005

Epstein has some very good and valid points concerning maintaining a balance between the Freeware business model (e.g.: Linux) and the proprietary model (e.g.: anything created by Microsoft). There are good and bad to both systems, and the presence of both is a healthy thing.

This is a good point and, given that he's a lawyer, well stated and well taken.

However, in another essay in the same magazine (Epstein is smart, but still wrong) Lessig makes one important point (for the second time) that I think is a valid concern - Epstein does not address the technological aspects of the DRM (software that will effectively prevent copywriting, remixing, or downloading without payment up front).

We are entering into an age where our actions will be monitored by the programming, instead of the laws or social encouragement towards honesty and decency (which may or may not have ever worked - that's certainly an item for debate). Our ability to create anything new may be greatly modified by the computerized comparisons between a n essay I wrote today, and a internet-connected computer's comparison of that essay to every essay ever written anywhere and at any time.

One way of the other, all of this is going to greatly affect (and change) the way we create and communicate via electronic means. It may change the way we do so face-to-face as well.

I will agree with Epstein on one point: there is no perfect solution here. As a writer and a artistic crafter of words, I want the right to own my own work. As a bookworm with firm beliefs in the altruistic theories behind all information being free and available to all people, I want my work to be available for anyone, in the same way that I want everything to be made available to me.

It's a shame that anonymity combined with virtually no affective controls have provided us with this view of the average human being - more than willing to take someone else's work and pass it off as your own, just because you can.

Of course, from what I understands, that's essentially how Bill Gates got the product he needed to create Microsoft. So, perhaps this is just proof that all humans are ready and willing to take the money and the power, if they can simply find the resources and opportunities to pull it off.

Maybe that data is in your blog. Maybe it's not.

Perhaps we'll all eventually reach the point where we'll stop asking ourselves if we have any ideas, hopes, or dreams, and start looking around to see if we have anything that's worth stealing.

Robots - dance and explode

2005-09-10T06:26:00.000-05:00

Japanese industrial robot learns to dance
Posted Jan 13, 2005, 9:14 AM ET by Marc Perton
Engaget

and

KawadaÂs HRP-3P humanoid robot designed for risky business
Posted Sep 9, 2005, 5:00 AM ET by Barb Dybwad
Engaget

Robots doing traditional Japanese dance and performing really risky tasks at construction sites. The Japanese have a lot more in automation that we do - and, yet, they also have a lot more people. Is there anyone out there stepping up and saying that the robot took their job? Depending on who you are and what you do (dangerous or not) work is work.

And, is teaching a robot to dance really "a way to preserve Japan’s cultural heritage"? Because you have a machine that can walk you through the steps does not, necessarily, mean that you (or it) are living the culture that created those step. A culture is dead when people stop living it - much like a language is dead when people stop using it. And, living and recording are two different things. Just because a Robot can pass along an entire dictionary in Sanskrit (sp?), or even speak the language fluently, doesn't mean that the language is in a revival.

But, that's just my opinion

Being Poor

2005-09-07T19:37:00.000-05:00

I was scanning over a friend's blog, just checking to see what I missed over the past month or two (I'm awful that way -I keep up, then I go into recluse mode and no one knows where I am and I have no idea what they are doing....but I digress) and the most recent entry is a link to this: What it is to be Poor

In short, a list of short sentences describing what it is to be poor. I can add at least one more:
Being poor is reading the 'Being poor' list and trying to count how many of them you have NOT lived.

And, I would like to modify the following:
Being poor is stopping the car to take a lamp from a stranger's trash.

To read:
Being poor is stopping the car to take a lamp from a stranger's trash, so that you can sell it at the FleaMarket (or garage sale, or on the side of the road), that Saturday.

Anyhow, that said, I will thank Prohibit for posting the link. It's a good list, albeit it a tad depressing.

Damn, I'm thinking of more...

Freeware means Power to the People!

2005-09-07T14:33:00.000-05:00

The People Own Ideas
by Lawrence Lessig
Technology Today
June 1995

The debate over copyright laws rages on and the proponents of Freeware, or Shareware, are saying free the ideas for universal use. Ok, cool enough. I love the entire philosophy surrounding Linux, GNU, PHP, PERL, and the like. But, this article touches on something I had not thought about: Remixing.

Remixing is taking someone else's work and turning it into your own, or taking your own work and changing it into something new. With the tools provided by the computer age, that does not mean that an art student must study and practice enough to create a version of the Mona Lisa which they modify for their own purposes - it means a student (art or otherwise) with a copy of photoshop takes a copy or photo of the Mona Lisa off of the web and proceeds to make changes.

Is this breaking of tradition or a continuing of thousands of years of culture creation? Is it stealing copyrighted material, or involving yourself in an artistic conversation (whether the response is flattering or insulting)?

The article brings up all sorts of questions that are suited to advanced level courses in philosophy, Art History, Literary Criticism, and Ethics. This is not an easy and straightforward question. This requires debate.

But, the article does not provide much in the way of debate - it's more of a presentation of one perspective.

The was a World Social Forum held in Brazil, which this article centers around. This forum featured several large computer labs featuring nothing but free software...and the software covered everything from Linux OS to video editing software (which I'd really like to get my hands on - in case someone happens to know where it can be found). The labs were there to display what was out there and what could be done with it.

It was also highlighting Brazil's own socio-political-economic decision to free itself from Microsoft entirely. Since Microsoft decided to start demanding moneys for licenses that the government of Brazil determined to be unreasonable, the government of Brazil proceeded to remove Microsoft from every government, school, and library computer in the country. It's all going freeware.

If nothing else, between that and the portrayal of Ministry of Culture representative Gilberto Gil saying things like:
"...America, he explained, has 'important' people. "Here we are just citizens."" Pg 53.

It will make you want to take the time to tour Brazil.

Live from the Hurricane

2005-09-07T12:21:00.000-05:00

Interdictor

A coworker mentioned this blog to me (and I pulled it off of his blog - a link he created after another coworker pointed him to the same place...gotta love the web).

So far I've only read a few entries and they're sometimes hilarious, sometimes exciting, and sometimes...scary?

I'll admit it, I have a fantasy about being able to do on-the-spot reporting type work (Something exactly like this: a blog, a wild, desperate, dangerous situation, and frequent updates to the blog). I'm a wee bit jealous.

Yes, it's strange, but it's true.

Because 100% growth isn't enough

2005-09-07T12:05:00.000-05:00

Good-Bye to Venture Capitol
by Howard Anderson
Technology Review
June 2005

The market has become rational, so Venture capitalist's aren't looking at companies that make 600% growth anymore and 150% return on an investment just isn't enough to keep investing.

The concept of 'isn't enough' in the United States has got to just blow the minds of people almost anywhere else in the world.

Oops, that was one of ours

2005-09-07T11:25:00.000-05:00

Preventing "Fratricide"
by David Talbot
Technology Review
June 2003

Patriot missiles have been hailed as brilliant technology that keeps American Soldiers safe by shooting scuds out of the sky. Although it should come as no surprise, the Bush Administration (this would be the FIRST Bush administration - the president in the family who was actually elected that first time around) used the Patriot missile as a pat-ourselves-on-the-back gimmick that was not based in truth (at all). The Patriot missiles are no where nears as affective as the public and Congress have been led to believe.

However, they were also not as well tested as the Military seems to have been led to believe. Apparently, there are issues with placing to many of them in close proximity that results in either the soldiers firing the gun, or the gun itself, to pin point our own jets for enemy missiles.

So, then we have...

"Uh, Joe."
"Yeah, Bob."
"That scud missile you just shot outta the sky wasn't a skud missile."
"It was to a scud missile, I had it dead in my sights."
A large piece of plane with an American flag painted to the side of it crashes to the ground.
"Nope. Nope, that's no scud."
"Damn, that's one of ours."
"Yep. Yep."
They consider this for a moment.
"What should we do Joe?"
"Tell the man in charge, I imagine."
"You think we'll get in trouble?"
"Naw."
"Why not?"
"'cause that's the 4th one this week, and no one's said nothin' yet."
"Why d'you suppose that is, Joe?"
"Well Bob, every plane we take down by accident is just one more plane that the higher ups can claim was taken down by the enemy on purpose."
"I guess that makes sense."
"Yep, sure does."
"Seems a shame though."
"Yep, that it does. But it's goin' to happen, one way or another."
"I suppose so."

I paid fur a real smart 'un - added note

2005-09-07T07:10:00.000-05:00

I chatted with a neighbor of mine, who teaches 5th grade, about the parents (and resultant kids) who paid for sperm from the Nobel Prize bank.

We were originally talking about parents who think their kids can do no wrong, and the kids-who-do-no-wrong that really need a good dose of tough-love. I mentioned the Pay-For-The-Superbrain-Nobel-Prize-Bank and asked her what she thought about the prospect of working with the parents (as the women who took advantage of the bank were not single and they did not do it in secret) who were damned proud of the fact that they'd paid for designer brain-genes for their kid.

Her response was a kind of snort-laugh that had absolutely no humor in it.

Maybe we could do those poor folk first

2005-09-07T06:37:00.000-05:00

The Vaccine That Almost Wasn't
Technology Review
June 2005

GlaxoSmithKline has a vaccine for the rotavirus. The Rotavirus causes diarrhea, which kills hundreds of thousands of kids WORLDWIDE.

The WORLDWIDE is important here, because less than 50 (per year) of those are in the United States. The standard procedure is for big PHARMA to create, test, and market vaccines to the industrialized nations (read: the U.S.) first, and then (maybe 15 to 20 years down the road) work on developing a vaccine for everyone else AFTER they've made their money off of it. However, the problems in getting this one approved by the FDA caused the vaccine to...almost..never...be.

But the great humanitarians at GlaxoSmithKline realized that they had sunk far to much money into the research to give up so easily. So, as the story goes, they looked at their options, talked to the FDA, the FDA gave them an undisclosed number of human-test-subjects (read: children who have received the vaccination) that would have to be completed before they would consider releasing it in the golden money-churn that is the United States, and GlaxoSmithKline thought...hmmm...didn't we have all sorts of offers from third world nations...?

So, there you have it, a vaccine is being created and released in third world countries BEFORE the United States, because the need for human guinea pigs gave big PHARMA the idea to start there first.

Nevermind the hundreds of thousands of kids dying every years because of the virus this vaccine is supposed to be working against.

Nevermind the fact that the vaccine will be released into the population as a scientific study that will (if the gods care to look kindly upon GlaxoSmithKline's pocketbook) cause minimal serious side affects to the children who take it.

Nevermind that, if the serious side affects DO occur, the third world nations will be so happy to just have SOMEthing to address the issue, that GlaxoSmithKline will be glossed over on the issue and the vaccine will be fixed up, nice and pretty, by the time it hits the industrialized nations.

According to the article in this M.I.T. produced rag, GlaxoSmithKline should be lauded as not only humanitarians, but as ground breaking scientists for daring to go against the standard procedure that is vaccine creation.

Namely: treating the poor folk first.

Network on your Forehead

2005-09-07T06:26:00.000-05:00

Instant Networks: Just Add Software
Technology Review
June 2005

PacketHop is a company that is producing hardware and software that allows a network to be created instantly. The purpose is to set up a communication system for Firefighters and rescue workers, that allows them to talk to each other in the middle of an emergency situation. The hardware attaches to equipment, and to emergency workers themselves, so there's video and maps and text and all sorts of things that is transferred from one to the other - instantly. And, the network is set up so that, if one goes down, the others keep the network going. So, there's no ancient Christmas tree lights affect where the whole string goes black because one bulb is burned out. Of course, if you translate burnt-out-bulb into firefighter-who-is-now-turning-to-ash it's a little less fun to think about.

Personally, I think this is a really cool idea, but at perfectly viable (and more accessible) testing ground would be a bunch of geeks at a renfaire, or a reenactment, or teenagers doing whatever-it-is-that-teenagers-do, or X-Games, or football players during a game...this could be fun.

Interactive Spam

2005-09-07T06:09:00.000-05:00

The Customer is Always Right There
Technology Review
June 2005

Reactrix Systems is making advertising that interacts with you. Right now, it consists of images from a video camera, displayed on the ground, of Toys-R-Us ads that 'pop' when kids/people step on them and turn into floating Toys-R-Us characters (this started out as a cool feature for Raves...that should help you visualize this).

OK, technology is cool, the prospect of having interactive images at dance bars and the like is pretty darn awesome....until...you think....SPAM.

DNA is the new Lego

2005-09-07T06:02:00.000-05:00

Design by DNA
Technology Today
June 2005

Ned Seeman is building things with DNA. He's making his own DNA. He's trying to create computer components out of DNA. At this point he's created crystals, mostly, but the concept makes me think...is this going to be our real-life Jurassic Park? What happens if these DNA start to mutate (as they are known to do) or grow or multiply (as they are known to do)? Is this the scientific basis for the next book/movie on out-of-control AI computers? Is this what *really* happened to those awful robots in Battlestar Galactica?

I paid fur a real smart 'un

2005-09-05T12:13:00.000-05:00

Genius Envy
Mother Jones
May/June 2005

Some guy put together a sperm bank specifically for Nobel Prize winners, convinced a bunch of these men to donate (apparently the women were not approached, or were considered irrelevant, or I'm just supposed to assume that no woman has won the prize...not sure which) their sperm for the express purpose of finding high IQ mommies and passing along the genes.

No, really, this actually happened.

The Genius Factor by David Plotz (Random House) is a book based around this now-defunct bank and the children who were propagated by it.

I must admit that I'm bemused and curious. The book may have to be added to my must-read list.

Another win for the big Pharma

2005-09-05T12:09:00.000-05:00

The Side Effects of Truth
Mother Jones
May/June 2005

The FDA is now funded by big pharmaceutical companies, which means the FDA is pandering to the people who need their approval to sell the drugs that are supposedly under investigation for dangerous side affect and effectiveness in terms of the claims they make.

Apparently the FDA has become just another example of red-tape that can be cut through with the right amount of money - body count be damned.

If nothing else, it will provide a healthy amount of information on who not to trust: the FDA, the companies putting out the drugs, and your doctor. Make sure to research everything they given you through newsgroups and support groups, otherwise someone might happen to miss that heart-attack side-affect.

Mental Health and Big Pharma

2005-09-05T12:02:00.000-05:00

Medicating Aliah
Mother Jones
May/June 2005

The school system of Texas decided to press a 13 year old girl into 'Mental health Screening' because she was...quite frankly...a loud mouth with no tact. As a result, she spent several months tied down and drugged out of her mind (but, hey, the school system didn't have to deal with her, now did they?).

The drugs used were newer (more expensive) drugs that have not been fully tested. Due to legislation set up in Texas (and recently exported to PA) the drug companies highly influenced the guide used by doctors to determine which drugs they will use on patients first. The most expensive and most un-tested are first.

So, that means that in the state hospital (when they have you by the short and curlies and no decisions involve input from the patient or the family), then the doctors are effectively using patients as human lab rats at the highest possible cost to the state. The pharmaceutical companies, on the other hand, are easily tripling their income AND garnering a whole lot of information on what the drugs actually do (never mind the dangerous or socially crippling side affects...what OTHER diagnosis can we use this to treat?).

Wow. Thanks for all of the Mental Health 'Care.'

No really, it's not all that hot

2005-09-05T11:56:00.000-05:00

Climate of Denial
Mother Jones
May/June 2005

and

Some Like It Hot
Mother Jones
May/June 2005

Michael Crichton has written a 'science' fiction novel that 'proves' environmentalists and global warming are a hoax...and the government is listening...???

What it comes down to is this: ExxonMobil will do anything in their power to make you believe that Global Warming is not an issue (right down to telling you it' cold when it's hot) and they've funded an enormous number of organizations, social groups, and questionable science to 'prove' this.

Is there something about oil, specifically, that makes people....greasy?

Planning for both Young and Old

2005-09-05T11:37:00.000-05:00

The Parent Trap
Mother Jones
May/June 2005

All of this talk about Social Security reform is beginning to annoy me. Partly because I have trust issues with any government and, therefore, tend to subscribe to the more Republican stance of less-is-better. Yet, by the same token, I am very much a liberal and, therefore, highly distrustful (based on history) of the average human being's ability to do the right thing by their friends or their family without some kind of governmental backup.

Bottom line - I don't like the idea of the government being given responsibility of the welfare of the infirm and the aged, but I know good and damned well how people have handled those responsibilities on their own.

So, which way to go? Force the government to stop all of this Bush Family pocket lining that this Presidency has panned out to be, and take up the call to get reforms through that actually HELP someone? Or, follow the trend, back up the demise of Social Security, and just hope that people either wise up and learn to treat each other with some dignity by the time I reach that age (the possibility of having the kind of cash required to 'earn' that kind of respect is not something I can claim to hope for).

Well, I guess my answer to my own question would be neither. I agree that the devil-is-in-the-details and we need to work out realistic plans for the care of both young and old in this country. However, I think this planning should be done on a more local (hopefully family) level. To my (rather idealistic) mind, the planning for old age should begin in youth when we are developing communities, careers, and ambitions. And, I do NOT believe that the planning should be monetary - I can tell you from experience that money comes and money goes and more than one person has had a nice little nest egg ripped away 2 days into retirement because their pension was eliminated for the sake of 'saving' the company (or the stock market crashed, or a difficult and expensive family situation arose, or that person just flat out got robbed).

Now, the details must be paid attention to, but the details of note are not located in an individual's bank account. The closest any person is ever going to come to finding 'security' is through the development of a community of people.

This is part of the reason for my fascination with http://www.ic.org as of late. These are some ideas that I've had:

If you envision setting up a community with a mixed age population (birth to retiree), and create businesses that every person takes part in (in some form or another), then Health Insurance can be arranged for every member of that community (regardless of their relationships to one another) due to being listed as 'employees' or 'members' of the community. So, that covers Health Care from birth to death.

If the community members go into it with the intention of building a place for themselves to grow old and die in, then a focus can be placed on setting up realistic systems for taking care of both the young and the old. Let's face it, some people are really good with kids (but not so good with the elderly), and some people are really good with the elderly (and not so good with kids), so community members could take up (or be assigned) roles within the community based on where their strengths, times, talents, and ambitions can be found.

Theoretically, this would reduce the occurrence of women being placed in the role of duel care-giver while forgoing a career or a business of her own or her art or...?

It also would allow children to be raised around grandparents, and grandparents to be involved in the day-to-day of business and life, because everyone is in it together.

Like I said, this is idealism that's coming out. BUT, the point that I want to make about all of this is the fact that the nuclear family DOES NOT WORK. Relying on the government to take care of you like some kind of kind old Uncle DOES NOT WORK. If any of us wishes to find security in old age then we have to invest our time and energy into developing a community or people and resources that will surround us in our infirmary - we must pull together the extended family.

Take down that hospital!

2005-09-05T11:31:00.000-05:00

Pocket Protector
Mother Jones
May/June 1995

K.B. Forbes is taking on the Hospitals for doing something that some of us have known about our entire lives ---> way overcharging the poor.

Or, rather, overcharging the uninsured.

He's having quite a bit of success with it too. Hopefully Forbes fight will leave the California Coast and enter into poor communities all over this country, because it's not a pretty place to be in when you're uninsured and in need of care. Assuming they give it to you at all, I have not dealt with a hospital yet that wouldn't take everything you owned AND your next 10 years worth of paychecks, just for granting you the honor of being seen by their most incompetent of physicians...and that's regardless of whether or not your problem ever even gets addressed.

A big cheer for K.B. Forbes! Yeah!

Finances

2005-09-05T11:29:00.000-05:00

Pay Now, Pay Later
Mother Jones
May/June 2005

My thoughts: What? You mean we HAVE anti-usury laws in this country? I thought those were just special privileges that were handed to rich people.

Big Brother is Watching

2005-09-05T11:22:00.000-05:00

Battlespace America
Mother Jones
May/June 2005

An article illustrating the ways the US Government (Pentagon, Army, local Police, etc.) can look into the private details of any person's life...and then start making that life hell.

This really isn't anything new (as far as articles go), but I did find myself wondering about the examples. What I wondered was this - are these examples of the Army actually investigating someone they consider to be a threat, or are these practice maneuvers and training assignments that just happen to make it into the press. If these are, in fact, training & practice, then is the Army annoyed, or pleased, that it made it into the press?

The thing about getting into the nitty gritty details of EVERY person's life is that you end up with mountains of information and a close up view of the American public that's something akin to getting to close to a pixelized picture. It doesn't tell you much (if anything) about the state of the people over all.

But, it DOES give you the opportunity to screw around with people on an individual basis, which could be done by officials because they think it's necessary...or maybe they just think it's fun.