Monday, 29 March 2010

Meh, the weekend is almost over...


Another weekend comes to an end.  Bummer...

The Catholic church seems to be crumbling, or at least cracking under the pressures of the truth.  I read some great commentaries regarding treating the church as a criminal organization, and rejecting them as a moral authority.

No kidding!

But there is more happening in the world... we all have the lives we live every day.  And we don't need the Pope or any other religious "authority" to tell us how or who or what to do.

We just DO.  And we know what is right or wrong in our hearts.

I plant things in my garden, because it will feed my family in a few months, and there is a great satisfaction in that.  Close to the earth!  Food that came from our hard work and care.



Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds - Stagger Lee (White Room)


Peter Brookes @'The Times'

Very useful that 'faith in g*d'!

The pontiff said faith in God helps lead one "toward the courage of not allowing oneself to be intimidated by the petty gossip of dominant opinion."
jayrosen_nyu
$215 a year for the Wall Street Journal on the iPad. $140 for the print delivery plus online. Do YOU understand that pricing? Does anyone?

Nathan Sawaya - The Art of the Brick

The war on WikiLeaks and why it matters

Top 10 internet filter lies

REpost: Obama on 'net neutrality' (november 14 2007)

US Government concerned about Australia’s proposed Internet filter

The Australian is reporting that the US State Department has some concerns about the Australian Government’s policy to introduce mandatory Internet filtering:
THE Obama administration has questioned the Rudd government’s plan to introduce an internet filter, saying it runs contrary to the US’s foreign policy of encouraging an open internet to spread economic growth and global security.
Officials from the State Department have raised the issue with Australian counterparts as the US mounts a diplomatic assault on internet censorship by governments worldwide.
The news is a blow to Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, who is defending the plan for internet companies to mandatorily block illegal and abhorrent websites — for instance, child pornography — but faces growing opposition.
While considered a noble idea, any filter is considered by many — even within the Labor caucus — to be unworkable and a misdirection of resources away from enforcement and policing.
Read more here.  The concerns of the US Government echo similar concerns being voiced by a wide range of different organisations, and will hopefully place even more pressure on Senator Conroy and the Australian Government’s misguided Internet filtering policy.

Drug adviser quits as ministers prepare mephedrone ban

Mephedrone
Another senior government drugs adviser has quit, hours before ministers are expected to ban a new "legal high".
Dr Polly Taylor said she did not trust the government's use of advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. She is the sixth member to quit.
On Monday the body will give the home secretary its advice on mephedrone.
It is unclear if Dr Taylor's resignation will affect the status of the expected ban on the drug, linked in the media to four deaths in the UK.
The council's meeting on Monday could be overshadowed by the departure of Dr Taylor - the ACMD's veterinary medicine expert whose post is required by law to be filled on the committee.
A Home Office spokeswoman said she would not speculate on any delay to the ban.
Dr Polly Taylor
There is little more we can do to describe the importance of ensuring that advice is not subjected to a desire to please ministers
Dr Polly Taylor
So far there is no scientific proof that mephedrone has been responsible for any deaths in the UK, and scientists are still trying to work out whether it is harmful on its own or if taken with something else.
However, there is widespread expectation that Home Secretary Alan Johnson will announce a ban on the drug before the end of the day because of the risks it poses.
Last week, the government's chief drugs adviser, Professor Les Iversen, strongly indicated that the council would recommend classifying mephedrone as a Class B drug.
In her resignation letter, Dr Taylor told the home secretary she was quitting because she did not have trust in the way the government would treat its advice.
"I feel that there is little more we can do to describe the importance of ensuring that advice is not subjected to a desire to please ministers or the mood of the day's press," she wrote.
MEPHEDRONE FACTS
Effects similar to amphetamines and ecstasy
Sold as a white powder, capsules and pills or can be dissolved in liquid
Often sold online as plant food marked "not for human consumption"
Completely different to methadone, used to treat heroin addicts
Reported side-effects include headaches, palpitations, nausea, cold or blue fingers
Long-term effect unknown
Currently legal to buy and be in possession of the powder, but against the law to sell, supply or advertise the powder for human consumption
Already illegal in Israel, Denmark, Norway and Sweden
Last October, Mr Johnson sacked his chief drugs adviser, Professor David Nutt, saying the ACMD chairman had lobbied against government policy.
The sacking led five other members to quit and an urgent review of the committee's working relationship with ministers.
Dr Nutt, who has set up his own rival expert body, has warned that banning mephedrone could be self-defeating and that the evidence supporting a ban is not clear.
He has urged the ACMD and ministers to wait for the verdict of an expert European body which is looking at the use of the drug across all EU member states.
"This is a pivotal moment in UK drug policy," said Dr Nutt.
"Given the plethora of 'legal highs' that could follow in mephedrone's wake, the way in which this issue is handled could well set the tone for many years to come."
The Conservatives have called for the law to be changed to allow temporary bans of drugs while the scientific evidence is assessed.

An Open Letter to Conservatives by Russell King

Dear Conservative Americans,
The years have not been kind to you. I grew up in a profoundly Republican home, so I can remember when you wore a very different face than the one we see now.  You've lost me and you've lost most of America.  Because I believe having responsible choices is important to democracy, I'd like to give you some advice and an invitation.
First, the invitation:  Come back to us.
Now the advice.  You're going to have to come up with a platform that isn't built on a foundation of cowardice: fear of people with colors, religions, cultures and sex lives that differ from your own; fear of reform in banking, health care, energy; fantasy fears of America being transformed into an Islamic nation, into social/commun/fasc-ism, into a disarmed populace put in internment camps; and more.  But you have work to do even before you take on that task.
Your party -- the GOP -- and the conservative end of the American political spectrum have become irresponsible and irrational.  Worse, it's tolerating, promoting and celebrating prejudice and hatred.  Let me provide some examples -- by no means an exhaustive list -- of where the Right as gotten itself stuck in a swamp of hypocrisy, hyperbole, historical inaccuracy and hatred.
If you're going to regain your stature as a party of rational, responsible people, you'll have to start by draining this swamp:
Hypocrisy
You can't flip out -- and threaten impeachment - when Dems use a parliamentary procedure (deem and pass) that you used repeatedly (more than 35 times in just one session and more than 100 times in all!), that's centuries old and which the courts have supported. Especially when your leaders admit it all.
You can't vote and scream against the stimulus package and then take credit for the good it's done in your own district (happily handing out enormous checks representing money that you voted against, is especially ugly) --  114 of you (at last count) did just that -- and it's even worse when you secretly beg for more.
You can't fight against your own ideas just because the Dem president endorses your proposal.
You can't call for a pay-as-you-go policy, and then vote against your own ideas.
Are they "unlawful enemy combatants" or are they "prisoners of war" at Gitmo? You can't have it both ways.
You can't carry on about the evils of government spending when your family has accepted more than a quarter-million dollars in government handouts.
You can't refuse to go to a scheduled meeting, to which you were invited, and then blame the Dems because they didn't meet with you.
You can't rail against using teleprompters while using teleprompters. Repeatedly.
You can't rail against the bank bailouts when you supported them as they were happening.
You can't be for immigration reform, then against it .
You can't enjoy socialized medicine while condemning it.
You can't flip out when the black president puts his feet on the presidential desk when you were silent about white presidents doing the same.  Bush.  Ford.
You can't complain that the president hasn't closed Gitmo yet when you've campaigned to keep Gitmo open.
You can't flip out when the black president bows to foreign dignitaries, as appropriate for their culture, when you were silent when the white presidents did the same. Bush.  Nixon. Ike. You didn't even make a peep when Bush held hands and kissed (on the mouth) leaders of countries that are not on "kissing terms" with the US.
You can't complain that the undies bomber was read his Miranda rights under Obama when the shoe bomber was read his Miranda rights under Bush and you remained silent.  (And, no, Newt -- the shoe bomber was not a US citizen either, so there is no difference.)
You can't attack the Dem president for not personally* publicly condemning a terrorist event for 72 hours when you said nothing about the Rep president waiting 6 days in an eerily similar incident (and, even then, he didn't issue any condemnation).  *Obama administration did the day of the event.
You can't throw a hissy fitsound alarms and cry that Obama freed Gitmo prisoners who later helped plan the Christmas Day undie bombing, when -- in fact -- only one former Gitmo detainee, released by Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, helped to plan the failed attack.
You can't condemn blaming the Republican president for an attempted terror attack on his watch, then blame the Dem president for an attempted terror attack on his.
You can't mount a boycott against singers who say they're ashamed of the president for starting a war, but remain silent when another singer says he's ashamed of the president and falsely calls him a Maoist who makes him want to throw up and says he ought to be in jail.
You can't cry that the health care bill is too long, then cry that it's too short.
You can't support the individual mandate for health insurance, then call it unconstitutional when Dems propose it and campaign against your own ideas.
You can't demand television coverage, then whine about it when you get it.  Repeatedly.
You can't praise criminal trials in US courts for terror suspects under a Rep president, then call it "treasonous" under a Dem president.
You can't propose ideas to create jobs, and then work against them when the Dems put your ideas in a bill.
You can't be both pro-choice and anti-choice.
You can't damn someone for failing to pay $900 in taxes when you've paid nearly $20,000 in IRS fines.
You can't condemn criticizing the president when US troops are in harms way, then attack the president when US troops are in harms way , the only difference being the president's party affiliation (and, by the way, armed conflict does NOT remove our right and our duty as Americans to speak up).
You can't be both for cap-and-trade policy and against it.
You can't vote to block debate on a bill, then bemoan the lack of  'open debate'.
If you push anti-gay legislation and make anti-gay speeches, you should probably take a pass on having gay sex, regardless of whether it's 2004 or 2010.  This is true, too, if you're taking GOP money and giving anti-gay rants on CNN.  Taking right-wing money and GOP favors to write anti-gay stories for news sites while working as a gay prostitute, doubles down on both the hypocrisy and the prostitution.  This is especially true if you claim your anti-gay stand is God's stand, too.
When you chair the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, you can't send sexy emails to 16-year-old boys (illegal anyway, but you made it hypocritical as well).
You can't criticize Dems for not doing something you didn't do while you held power over the past 16 years, especially when the Dems have done more in one year than you did in 16.
You can't decry "name calling" when you've been the most consistent and outrageous at it. And the most vile.
You can't spend more than 40 years hating, cutting and trying to kill Medicare, and then pretend to be the defenders of Medicare
You can't praise the Congressional Budget Office when it's analysis produces numbers that fit your political agenda, then claim it's unreliable when it comes up with numbers that don't.
You can't vote for X under a Republican president, then vote against X under a Democratic president.  Either you support X or you don't. And it makes it worse when you change your position merely for the sake obstructionism.
You can't call a reconciliation out of bounds when you used it repeatedly.
You can't spend taxpayer money on ads against spending taxpayer money.
You can't condemn individual health insurance mandates in a Dem bill, when the mandates were your idea.
You can't demand everyone listen to the generals when they say what fits your agenda, and then ignore them when they don't.
You can't whine that it's unfair when people accuse you of exploiting racism for political gain, when your party's former leader admits you've been doing it for decades.
You can't portray yourself as fighting terrorists when you openly and passionately support terrorists.
You can't complain about a lack of bipartisanship when you've routinely obstructed for the sake of political gain -- threatening to filibuster at least 100 pieces of legislation in one session, far more than any other since the procedural tactic was invented -- and admitted it.  Some admissions are unintentional, others are made proudly. This is especially true when the bill is the result of decades of compromise between the two parties and is filled with your own ideas.
You can't question the loyalty of Department of Justice lawyers when you didn't object when your own Republican president appointed them.
You can't preach and try to legislate "Family Values" when you: take nude hot tub dips with teenagers (and pay them hush money); cheat on your wife with a secret lover and lie about it to the world; cheat with a staffer's wife (and pay them off with a new job); pay hookers for sex while wearing a diaper and cheating on your wife; or just enjoying an old fashioned non-kinky cheating on your wife; try to have gay sex in a public toilet; authorize the rape of children in Iraqi prisons to coerce their parents into providing information; seek, look at or have sex with children; replace a guy who cheats on his wife with a guy who cheats on his pregnant wife with his wife's mother;

Hyperbole
You really need to disassociate with those among you who:
History
If you're going to use words like socialismcommunism and fascism, you must have at least a basic understanding of what those words mean (hint: they're NOT synonymous!)
You can't cut a leading Founding Father out the history books because you've decided you don't like his ideas.
You cant repeatedly assert that the president refuses to say the word "terrorism" or say we're at war with terror when we have an awful lot of videotape showing him repeatedly assailing terrorism and using those exact words.
If you're going to invoke the names of historical figures, it does not serve you well to whitewash them. Especially this one.
You can't just pretend historical events didn't happen in an effort to make a political opponent look dishonest or to make your side look better. Especially these events. (And, no, repeating it doesn't make it better.)
You can't say things that are simply and demonstrably false: health care reform will not push people out of their private insurance and into a government-run program ; health care reform (which contains a good many of your ideas and very few from the Left) is a long way from "socialist utopia"; health care reform is not "reparations"; nor does health care reform create "death panels".
Hatred
You have to condemn those among you who:
Oh, and I'm not alone:  One of your most respected and decorated leaders agrees with me.
So, dear conservatives, get to work.  Drain the swamp of the conspiracy nuts, the bold-faced liars undeterred by demonstrable facts, the overt hypocrisy and the hatred.  Then offer us a calm, responsible, grownup agenda based on your values and your vision for America.  We may or may not agree with your values and vision, but we'll certainly welcome you back to the American mainstream with open arms.  We need you.
(Anticipating your initial response:  No there is nothing that even comes close to this level of wingnuttery on the American Left.)

Hicks Rejecting Offer for Liverpool, RBS Threatens to Repo Club

Word out of the U.K. has Tom Hicks refusing Rhone Group's offer of a £100 million for a majority piece of Liverpool FC, the exact amount he and George Gillett owe the Royal Bank of Scotland come July. I've asked Hicks's local spokesperson, Lisa LeMaster, wot the wot, but till then this report in News of the World is raising quite the ruckus abroad. It says not only is Hicks unwilling to give Rhone a 40-percent ownership stake in Liverpool FC, but his "hardline stance" is running off other potential piecemeal investors or those interested in buying the club outright. From the Saturday story:
The Royal Bank of Scotland is putting the squeeze on the Americans, demanding Hicks 'put up or give up' in his efforts to run the club. They want Hicks to agree to Purslow's recommendations. They don't believe the Texan can raise his own funds to reduce Liverpool's debt by the £100m demanded.
The Sunday Times puts it even more plainly today: "Royal Bank of Scotland, to whom the bulk of Liverpool's £237m debt is owed, have told Hicks and partner George Gillett they will repossess the club and sell it should the Americans fail to repay £100m by July." Gillett, according to accounts, wants to sell, but Hicks doesn't. The perception, at least, is because "he won't personally benefit financially."...
Robert Wilonsky @'Unfair Park' 

How do you say it in American?
Hicks - you are an asshole!

Bobby McFerrin demonstrates the power of the pentatonic scale

Hawaii to Honor Cockfighting as a "Cultural Activity?