Ed Bond on Dipity.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Imagine the world
As we were leaving N.J. on our last visit, we stopped for gas. In N.J., you can't pump your own gas. So, ours was pumped by a man who seemed to be of Middle Eastern origin. The gas station was busy, and he was working hard.
For all I knew, he could have grown up in N.J., but looking at him I saw the classic story of the immigrant. A man comes to America, works hard so that his children could have a better life.
We've seen so many success stories of the children of immigrants. Barack Obama and Sonia Sotomayor to name two. It occurred to me that the the story of the success of the immigrant and person of color is about to accelerate.
In the not to distant future, white people will no longer be the majority in this country. In one generation, the children of the current immigrant population could be running things.
Imagine a country like the United States, founded on the principles of freedom and equality, without a white majority to dominate the political landscape. And what if this will be a time when no ethnic group has a majority.
Then, if we have not embittered the population with the legacy of hatred that has dominated our history, we might have a real chance at living with true justice and equality.
For all I knew, he could have grown up in N.J., but looking at him I saw the classic story of the immigrant. A man comes to America, works hard so that his children could have a better life.
We've seen so many success stories of the children of immigrants. Barack Obama and Sonia Sotomayor to name two. It occurred to me that the the story of the success of the immigrant and person of color is about to accelerate.
In the not to distant future, white people will no longer be the majority in this country. In one generation, the children of the current immigrant population could be running things.
Imagine a country like the United States, founded on the principles of freedom and equality, without a white majority to dominate the political landscape. And what if this will be a time when no ethnic group has a majority.
Then, if we have not embittered the population with the legacy of hatred that has dominated our history, we might have a real chance at living with true justice and equality.
On the death of Ted Kennedy
I just wanted to share the e-mail I got from Barack Obama on the death of Ted Kennedy.
ED --
Michelle and I were heartbroken to learn this morning of the death of our dear friend, Senator Ted Kennedy.
For nearly five decades, virtually every major piece of legislation to advance the civil rights, health and economic well-being of the American people bore his name and resulted from his efforts.
His ideas and ideals are stamped on scores of laws and reflected in millions of lives -- in seniors who know new dignity; in families that know new opportunity; in children who know education's promise; and in all who can pursue their dream in an America that is more equal and more just, including me.
In the United States Senate, I can think of no one who engendered greater respect or affection from members of both sides of the aisle. His seriousness of purpose was perpetually matched by humility, warmth and good cheer. He battled passionately on the Senate floor for the causes that he held dear, and yet still maintained warm friendships across party lines. And that's one reason he became not only one of the greatest senators of our time, but one of the most accomplished Americans ever to serve our democracy.
I personally valued his wise counsel in the Senate, where, regardless of the swirl of events, he always had time for a new colleague. I cherished his confidence and momentous support in my race for the Presidency. And even as he waged a valiant struggle with a mortal illness, I've benefited as President from his encouragement and wisdom.
His fight gave us the opportunity we were denied when his brothers John and Robert were taken from us: the blessing of time to say thank you and goodbye. The outpouring of love, gratitude and fond memories to which we've all borne witness is a testament to the way this singular figure in American history touched so many lives.
For America, he was a defender of a dream. For his family, he was a guardian. Our hearts and prayers go out to them today -- to his wonderful wife, Vicki, his children Ted Jr., Patrick and Kara, his grandchildren and his extended family.
Today, our country mourns. We say goodbye to a friend and a true leader who challenged us all to live out our noblest values. And we give thanks for his memory, which inspires us still.
Sincerely,
President Barack Obama
ED --
Michelle and I were heartbroken to learn this morning of the death of our dear friend, Senator Ted Kennedy.
For nearly five decades, virtually every major piece of legislation to advance the civil rights, health and economic well-being of the American people bore his name and resulted from his efforts.
His ideas and ideals are stamped on scores of laws and reflected in millions of lives -- in seniors who know new dignity; in families that know new opportunity; in children who know education's promise; and in all who can pursue their dream in an America that is more equal and more just, including me.
In the United States Senate, I can think of no one who engendered greater respect or affection from members of both sides of the aisle. His seriousness of purpose was perpetually matched by humility, warmth and good cheer. He battled passionately on the Senate floor for the causes that he held dear, and yet still maintained warm friendships across party lines. And that's one reason he became not only one of the greatest senators of our time, but one of the most accomplished Americans ever to serve our democracy.
I personally valued his wise counsel in the Senate, where, regardless of the swirl of events, he always had time for a new colleague. I cherished his confidence and momentous support in my race for the Presidency. And even as he waged a valiant struggle with a mortal illness, I've benefited as President from his encouragement and wisdom.
His fight gave us the opportunity we were denied when his brothers John and Robert were taken from us: the blessing of time to say thank you and goodbye. The outpouring of love, gratitude and fond memories to which we've all borne witness is a testament to the way this singular figure in American history touched so many lives.
For America, he was a defender of a dream. For his family, he was a guardian. Our hearts and prayers go out to them today -- to his wonderful wife, Vicki, his children Ted Jr., Patrick and Kara, his grandchildren and his extended family.
Today, our country mourns. We say goodbye to a friend and a true leader who challenged us all to live out our noblest values. And we give thanks for his memory, which inspires us still.
Sincerely,
President Barack Obama
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Big Mistake
I'm late in getting this on the record, but I just had to say that the release of the Lockerbie airline bomber was a big mistake.
Perhaps it was pushed as a way to heal the wounds between the Muslim and Western worlds, and perhaps there is reason to do that. However, to release someone responsible for the deaths of 270 people - including several from upstate New York - does not make sense.
This does not heal wounds. It aggravates them, especially for the families of the victims. And the Libyan celebrations of his release only underscore how foolish the British were to let him go.
If he were so sick that it warranted a release on humanitarian grounds, then he should have at least been carried off the plane on a stretcher.
He should have died in prison.
I wonder whether the U.S. could pursue him for prosecution.
On the other hand, I found it interesting that there was also a story in today's paper about William Calley apologizing for the My Lai massacre in 1968. He had been sentence to life in prison, but ended up serving only three years in house arrest. While there is some value in his apology - comparable to McNamara's apology for the entire Vietnam War - one must wonder how he managed to have such a normal life after this atrocity.
Perhaps it was pushed as a way to heal the wounds between the Muslim and Western worlds, and perhaps there is reason to do that. However, to release someone responsible for the deaths of 270 people - including several from upstate New York - does not make sense.
This does not heal wounds. It aggravates them, especially for the families of the victims. And the Libyan celebrations of his release only underscore how foolish the British were to let him go.
If he were so sick that it warranted a release on humanitarian grounds, then he should have at least been carried off the plane on a stretcher.
He should have died in prison.
I wonder whether the U.S. could pursue him for prosecution.
On the other hand, I found it interesting that there was also a story in today's paper about William Calley apologizing for the My Lai massacre in 1968. He had been sentence to life in prison, but ended up serving only three years in house arrest. While there is some value in his apology - comparable to McNamara's apology for the entire Vietnam War - one must wonder how he managed to have such a normal life after this atrocity.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Good news and bad news
The bad news: A Myanmar court found democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi guilty of violating her house arrest.
The good news: The head of the military-ruled country ordered her to serve an 18-month sentence under house arrest. So, it's more of the same for the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Why is that good news? She could have been sent to prison, where it would have been far too easy for the military junta to make her disappear or die under mysterious circumstances.
As reported by the Associated Press, the junta chief said she received a reduced sentence to "maintain peace and tranquility" and because Suu Kyi was the daughter of Aung San, a revered hero who won Myanmar's independence from Britain.
It is a small comfort that a even a brutal dictatorship can be reined in. The reduction of sentence is a small acknowledgment by the junta that it knows its own people and the international community care about the fate of this courageous woman.
The ruling re-establishes the status quo. But it gave the junta an excuse to extend her house arrest and keep her out of next year's elections.
As to the American, John Yettaw, who put Suu Kyi into jeopardy of going to prison, I was at first angry and dumbfounded that anyone would do something so reckless as to swim to her home. But with the reports of his seeing visions, having seizures and other health problems, he may not be as responsible. In America, he would probably be hospitalized and treated, not sentenced to hard labor.
But then again, in America, we wouldn't put democratic leaders under house arrest.
UPDATE: I was up in the middle of the night, watching the news reports on this decision. Commentators were saying that this was an unbearable decision for Suu Kyi, and they speculated that she would probably start a hunger strike.
In the struggle for freedom against a dictatorship, the status quo becomes unbearable.
The good news: The head of the military-ruled country ordered her to serve an 18-month sentence under house arrest. So, it's more of the same for the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Why is that good news? She could have been sent to prison, where it would have been far too easy for the military junta to make her disappear or die under mysterious circumstances.
As reported by the Associated Press, the junta chief said she received a reduced sentence to "maintain peace and tranquility" and because Suu Kyi was the daughter of Aung San, a revered hero who won Myanmar's independence from Britain.
It is a small comfort that a even a brutal dictatorship can be reined in. The reduction of sentence is a small acknowledgment by the junta that it knows its own people and the international community care about the fate of this courageous woman.
The ruling re-establishes the status quo. But it gave the junta an excuse to extend her house arrest and keep her out of next year's elections.
As to the American, John Yettaw, who put Suu Kyi into jeopardy of going to prison, I was at first angry and dumbfounded that anyone would do something so reckless as to swim to her home. But with the reports of his seeing visions, having seizures and other health problems, he may not be as responsible. In America, he would probably be hospitalized and treated, not sentenced to hard labor.
But then again, in America, we wouldn't put democratic leaders under house arrest.
UPDATE: I was up in the middle of the night, watching the news reports on this decision. Commentators were saying that this was an unbearable decision for Suu Kyi, and they speculated that she would probably start a hunger strike.
In the struggle for freedom against a dictatorship, the status quo becomes unbearable.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Why you shouldn't talk to crazy people
A friend posted this on Facebook today. Ordinarily I try not to deal with crazy people, but I had an issue I wanted to deal with.
Orly Taitz keeps going back to the point that Obama could not be a natural born citizen because his father was a Kenyan citizen. When she was on The Colbert Report, Colbert supported her saying it would mean going back to the days of Chester A. Arthur, whose father was not a U.S. citizen.
Then I wondered where she was coming from. So long as you were born in the United States, you are a natural born citizen and it does not matter whether your parents are. The rules for being a natural born citizen have some variation depending on where you where born. As territories joined the United States, laws were established saying who were the natural born citizens of the U.S.
For example, here is part of the U.S. code that deals with those born in Hawaii:
"A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900."
But it says nothing about what the citizenship of the parents must be.
So, what is Orly Taitz trying to say?
Well, here is the section of the U.S. Code that spells out natural born citizen. It defines a natural born citizen as:
If Obama was born in Hawaii, he meets that requirement. I've seen the birth certificate online, I'm satisfied. Also officials in the Hawaiian and federal government, as well as key Republican leaders have been satisfied with the documentation. (By the way, Happy Birthday, Mr. President!)
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe ... (doesn't apply here.)
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
OK, now this might be an issue, if it were proven that Obama was born outside the U.S. This criteria would not be met because his father was not a U.S. citizen.
OK, now this might be an issue, if it were proven that Obama was born outside the U.S. This criteria would not be met because his father was not a U.S. citizen.
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
No help for Obama under the Kenya birth scenario here. By the way, you can be a national of the U.S., but not a citizen. "A person whose only connection to the U.S. is through birth in an outlying possession (which as of 2005 is limited to American Samoa and Swains Island), or through descent from a person so born acquires U.S. nationality but not U.S. citizenship. This was formerly the case in only four other current or former U.S. overseas possessions[19]" (Sorry for the use of Wikipedia here.) But Obama's father had no claim of being a U.S. national.
No help for Obama under the Kenya birth scenario here. By the way, you can be a national of the U.S., but not a citizen. "A person whose only connection to the U.S. is through birth in an outlying possession (which as of 2005 is limited to American Samoa and Swains Island), or through descent from a person so born acquires U.S. nationality but not U.S. citizenship. This was formerly the case in only four other current or former U.S. overseas possessions[19]" (Sorry for the use of Wikipedia here.) But Obama's father had no claim of being a U.S. national.
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
Again, no help for Obama if he was born in Kenya.
Again, no help for Obama if he was born in Kenya.
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
This one doesn't affect us, but it has the makings of a good screenplay. A four-year-old child, found lost somewhere in the United States, grows up to run for president.
This one doesn't affect us, but it has the makings of a good screenplay. A four-year-old child, found lost somewhere in the United States, grows up to run for president.
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;
If I read this one correctly, Obama born in Kenya would meet the requirements of a U.S. citizen. His mother was a U.S. citizen who was present in the U.S. long enough.
and (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
This one doesn't apply, but there's probably an interesting story behind where this rule came from.
So, what is the kindest way to express Orly Taitz' argument?
She has dismissed the documentation on Obama's birth in Hawaii, and is trying to make an argument that because Obama was born outside of the U.S., he had to meet one of the more difficult criteria for being a natural born citizen, which are listed above. However, she does not explain her position well and does not even understand the point of law that she is arguing.
I felt some sympathy for her during this interview because from one perspective, it would appear she is being badgered and not being allowed to make her point. But from the other side of it, the interviewers know that she has already made her arguments in the media. They were not there to give her yet another platform to state her case. They wanted to get her to respond to new perspectives, new questions. She wouldn't play it that way. She wanted to go to her standard stump speech, and she got stomped.
What I don't like is that because of all the air time she has acquired, the public is more confused about the standards for a natural born citizen. Some may actually think that to be natural born, you not only have to be born in the U.S., but also have both parents be U.S. citizens. That's just not true. Anyone born in the U.S. - even if the parents are illegal aliens - are natural born citizens.
I fear that Orly Taitz' arguments will be picked up by the fringe and used by other more hateful minds who want to make a case about who are the "real Americans."
If I read this one correctly, Obama born in Kenya would meet the requirements of a U.S. citizen. His mother was a U.S. citizen who was present in the U.S. long enough.
and (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
This one doesn't apply, but there's probably an interesting story behind where this rule came from.
So, what is the kindest way to express Orly Taitz' argument?
She has dismissed the documentation on Obama's birth in Hawaii, and is trying to make an argument that because Obama was born outside of the U.S., he had to meet one of the more difficult criteria for being a natural born citizen, which are listed above. However, she does not explain her position well and does not even understand the point of law that she is arguing.
I felt some sympathy for her during this interview because from one perspective, it would appear she is being badgered and not being allowed to make her point. But from the other side of it, the interviewers know that she has already made her arguments in the media. They were not there to give her yet another platform to state her case. They wanted to get her to respond to new perspectives, new questions. She wouldn't play it that way. She wanted to go to her standard stump speech, and she got stomped.
What I don't like is that because of all the air time she has acquired, the public is more confused about the standards for a natural born citizen. Some may actually think that to be natural born, you not only have to be born in the U.S., but also have both parents be U.S. citizens. That's just not true. Anyone born in the U.S. - even if the parents are illegal aliens - are natural born citizens.
I fear that Orly Taitz' arguments will be picked up by the fringe and used by other more hateful minds who want to make a case about who are the "real Americans."
When Ann Coulter and Karl Rove say you are crazy, that should end the discussion.
Oh wait, they'd say I'm crazy too. Oh no! I have become Orly Taitz!
And that, finally, is why you should not talk to crazy people. They make you crazy.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
The Death of Journalism?
I had to take a break last week.
So, I'll get back into the groove of blogging by pointing you to an excellent article by Ian Shapira of the Washington Post about how an article he wrote was stolen by Gawker. What's worse is that because of current copyright laws, this kind of Internet thievery cannot be stopped. The laws that allowed news organizations to sue when their work is used without permission or credit disappeared in the 1970s.
My metaphor for the state of journalism - and newspapers - is that we are standing on a shrinking sheet of ice. And Shapira's article explains how the blogosphere is applying a blow torch under our feet. As Shapira explains, what I do in properly crediting and linking my readers to his story is fair. But what Gawker did was to summarize most of his story without properly linking to and crediting his work. They used so much of his piece that the typical reader would find no need to click on the link to the actual article.
Here's the article: The Death of Journalism (Gawker Edition)
So, I'll get back into the groove of blogging by pointing you to an excellent article by Ian Shapira of the Washington Post about how an article he wrote was stolen by Gawker. What's worse is that because of current copyright laws, this kind of Internet thievery cannot be stopped. The laws that allowed news organizations to sue when their work is used without permission or credit disappeared in the 1970s.
My metaphor for the state of journalism - and newspapers - is that we are standing on a shrinking sheet of ice. And Shapira's article explains how the blogosphere is applying a blow torch under our feet. As Shapira explains, what I do in properly crediting and linking my readers to his story is fair. But what Gawker did was to summarize most of his story without properly linking to and crediting his work. They used so much of his piece that the typical reader would find no need to click on the link to the actual article.
Here's the article: The Death of Journalism (Gawker Edition)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)