<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>
Your Inspirational Quote
Friday August 26, 2011
<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>
Hi Kate,
~~~
Today's Inspirational Quote:
"There comes a time in your life, when you walk away from all
the drama and people who create it. You surround yourself with
people who make you laugh. Forget the bad, and focus on the
good. Love the people who treat you right, pray for the ones
who don't. Life is too short to be anything but happy. Falling
down is a part of life, getting back up is living."
-- Unknown
~~~
Friday, August 26, 2011
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Call for Accountability...
Submitted by Ten Tanosborn
Need for Economic Crimes’ Nuremberg-Type Trials
I prefer the Spanish word “perogrullada” to its English equivalent: truism or platitude. During my youth we had something closer in meaning to perogrullada when we would confront someone expressing the obvious, saying “no kidding, Dick Tracy!” [Dick Tracy was then a very popular comic strip detective and crime solver.]
Well, the great minds here in America are now telling us that a double-dip recession is beginning to look more as a probability than a possibility. And I say… "No kidding, Dick Tracy!" We actually never came out of the recession, never mind some intermittent data that only served to confuse and mask the true state of most world economies, particularly those in much of the Western World.
How can any student of economics knowing, or even guessing, that there were trillions of dollars of overvalued assets and phony paper still in the books of many major world banks, disregard it as a non-event? Depending on how many trillion are inflating the books, recession will stay with us, particularly in much of Europe and the United States, for as long as a decade.
Although some of the latter day economic crimes are global in nature and deserve to be tried by an international tribunal, many nations are not quite yet prepared to grant authority on complex economic matters to an international body, such as the International Court at The Hague. The United States, a nation where much of the techno-financial crimes originated, would never consent to such scrutiny, and the likely indictment of many of its most prominent leaders in banking, finance and politics. No one would expect such masochism to take place for crimes that took place, and was allowed at the apex of American economic and political power.But we don’t need any foreign legal authority to tell us about the criminality which was, and continues to be, harbored in both Wall Street and Washington; we are well aware of it although seemingly impotent to do anything about it.
All Americans need is some honest leadership which will listen to their clamor for economic justice; leaders that would bring about the formation of a US economic tribunal (USET) under existing laws and, if necessary, ex post facto extraordinary laws that would have to be enacted to restore trust and bestow a sense of socio-economic fairness and morality in our nation and the people we elect to represent us. That tribunal would have to be totally independent and without influence from the White House, Congress or the Justice Department; a legal body that would be granted temporary investigatory, prosecutorial and punitive authority under a predetermined code, or set of principles.
Those of us who are history buffs, specifically World War II, including events that preceded and postdated that war (1937-1947), tend to look at the Nuremberg Trials (1945-6) with different degrees of criticism. One does not need to be a legal scholar to realize that much of the Nuremberg proceedings simulated more a lynching party, or a guillotine exhibition, than a trial conducted according to universal precepts of common law. The defendants, prisoners of war, were not allowed to challenge the fairness of the judges, nor were they given the right to appeal. Many of the crimes for which they were charged, and convicted of, had been and were being committed by the accusers, or their governments; at times such crimes falling under retrospective law. And, to top it all, the trials were conducted under their own, and unchallengeable, rules of evidence.
Yet, even if History ultimately renders the Nuremberg Trials as illusory justice, or even a mockery of justice, the argument will remain strong that an important purpose was served by these trials: placating the demands for justice of a bleeding continent which had shed 40 million lives and experienced ruinous destruction; even if in reality it was a victors’ justice, it was by most accounts a remarkable improvement over past historical situations where post-war resolution usually amounted to no more than vengeance over an entire nation or people.
Fortunately, we should be able to do much better today, and our government could offer more than just a semblance of justice in bringing about the unraveling of economic crimes through such an economic tribunal. The flaws in the Nuremberg Trials could be overcome for the most part, and an equally important purpose would be served: the soothing and return to trust of a nation which has been economically and incestuously raped by the very leaders and holders of the people’s trust; the raping conducted under the auspices of the free marketplace and globalization.
Obama, impotently and clueless, talks about creating jobs…
How about using a trillion dollars in requisitioned ill-gotten profits and punitive fines from the gangsters or banksters in Wall Street? A perfect way of funding, without adding to the national debt, the creation of several million jobs to renovate an infrastructure which is beginning to look as that of a developing country! Most of these Wall Street firms would be forced out of business, but their services really add no real value to commerce or society… the industry having proved itself as nothing but a parasite, one able to contaminate the nation’s institutions, as well as the greed and vanity of our elected politicians.
Christopher Robin's Birthday and Emily's House Warming Party
<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>
Your Inspirational Quote
Sunday August 21, 2011
<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>
Hi k8longstory,
Did you know...
... that today is Christopher Robin's Birthday? The model for
the human hero of the Winnie-the-Pooh books, Christopher Robin
Milne, was born in London, England, in 1920. His father, A.A.
Milne wrote the Winnie the Pooh books.
~~~
Today's Inspirational Quote:
"If ever there is tomorrow when we're not together... there is
something you must always remember. You are braver than you
believe, stronger than you seem, and smarter than you think.
But the most important thing is, even if we're apart... I'll
always be with you."
-- Winnie the Pooh
~~~
Your Inspirational Quote
Sunday August 21, 2011
<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>~<>
Hi k8longstory,
Did you know...
... that today is Christopher Robin's Birthday? The model for
the human hero of the Winnie-the-Pooh books, Christopher Robin
Milne, was born in London, England, in 1920. His father, A.A.
Milne wrote the Winnie the Pooh books.
~~~
Today's Inspirational Quote:
"If ever there is tomorrow when we're not together... there is
something you must always remember. You are braver than you
believe, stronger than you seem, and smarter than you think.
But the most important thing is, even if we're apart... I'll
always be with you."
-- Winnie the Pooh
~~~
Saturday, August 13, 2011
And So The Revolution Begins...pass the margaritas...
Aug 12, 2011 By Ramesh Srinivasan
Seeking out the true role of social media in revolt
Ramesh Srinivasan is an assistant professor in the departments of information studies and design|media arts. His findings on new media have been published in the Huffington Post and The New Yorker. His op-ed appeared originally in the Washington Post on August 11, 2011. He can be reached on Twitter via @rameshmedia.
The riots in London have placed the focus, yet again, on the power of social media to incite large groups to act on behalf of a cause. British publications were quick to blame social networks, such as Facebook, Google+, and Twitter for fueling the riots. But private Blackberry messaging — not Twitter — was the most popular medium through which rioters communicated. This is important because social media technologies include more than just text messages and tweets. Each technology could impact the shape of a protest or riot in a different way. But most importantly, over-generalizing social media’s role could do more to harm our understanding of an uprising than help it.
I understand the situation in London is evolving, and that the political and cultural environment dramatically differs from that within North Africa and the Middle East’s “Arab Spring.” But I remain curious as to why, just like the “Arab Spring,” so much attention is placed on social media in this protest. My recent research has focused on tracing the paths and voices of Egyptian citizens and activists, trying to answer the question of how and to what extent social media has shaped the political landscape in the Arab world’s most populous country. My time there convinces me that neither social media technologies nor the youth that use them are the main driver of the masses that overtook the streets of many cities in Egypt from January 25th onward.
Revolutions and riots pre-date social media. Deep unrest, a history of oppositional organizing, economic downturns, corruption, and the relatively neutral position of the military are all factors that have impacted Egypt. These far more dramatically shape the realities experienced in a country with 85 million people, under 5 percent of whom use Facebook and 1 percent use Twitter. While activists and younger, wealthier, and educated citizens may connect with one another and build strong ties via these technologies, legitimate grievances and community organizing more directly played a role in mobilizing the masses. Confronting these grievances by cutting off or hacking a communication technology, as one British lawmaker said should be done to Blackberry in London, fails to address the deep-rooted dissatisfaction that drove people to take to the streets. The Egypt case shows that when a regime cuts Internet, television, and mobile phone networks, protester numbers may actually increase.
Yet it is equally shortsighted to dismiss the power of YouTube videos, Tweets, Facebook groups, and mobile phones in shaping journalism, communication between activists, and on-the-ground mobile communication. When people act out they naturally use available media and, in the case of London, these would include technologies like Blackberry messaging. While in Egypt, fewer protesters directly engaged with these technologies, but they still influenced journalism and the direct communication patterns of a select few.
For example, different groups sharing common grievances can “like” each others’ Facebook pages and merge memberships without confronting emergency laws. Opinions and tactics introduced via Twitter can be rapidly re-tweeted and sourced as stories by domestic and international journalists. Activists can share tips and techniques with one another, and co-organize. Tunisian Mohamed Bouazizi can immolate himself in protest of a corrupt regime and impact both his own people as well as neighbors in Egypt — thanks to the ways in which video was captured and transmitted via mobile phones before being picked up by non-State-run television channels.
Social media are part of a much larger matrix of tools and intentions that rally masses. That said, they are neither necessary nor sufficient to make a revolution possible. By fixating on technologies and the few youth that actively use them, we ignore a much more powerful narrative — the story of how synergies are created between classes to mobilize as a network without depending on social media. In Egypt, these networks may include family connections, neighborhoods, mosques, and historical institutions, such as the previously banned Muslim Brotherhood. New technologies hardly erode or overwhelm these classic models of communication and information sharing.
The story of Egypt presents an example of how a shared desire to end a corrupt regime can bring together peoples from all walks of life. And learning from Egypt allows us to understand how complex networks form, sustain, and present possibilities for people to collectively imagine and take hold of their political and economic futures.
In light of this, let’s avoid making the same mistake in London.
By being so quick to blame social media for political and social unrest, we ignore the powerful economic and political grievances that drive discontent. With or without these technologies, people will ultimately stand up and speak their minds. If we continue to focus on technologies rather than peoples, we risk ignoring the source of their grievances and the more complex, organic networks by which they choose to communicate.
Seeking out the true role of social media in revolt
Ramesh Srinivasan is an assistant professor in the departments of information studies and design|media arts. His findings on new media have been published in the Huffington Post and The New Yorker. His op-ed appeared originally in the Washington Post on August 11, 2011. He can be reached on Twitter via @rameshmedia.
The riots in London have placed the focus, yet again, on the power of social media to incite large groups to act on behalf of a cause. British publications were quick to blame social networks, such as Facebook, Google+, and Twitter for fueling the riots. But private Blackberry messaging — not Twitter — was the most popular medium through which rioters communicated. This is important because social media technologies include more than just text messages and tweets. Each technology could impact the shape of a protest or riot in a different way. But most importantly, over-generalizing social media’s role could do more to harm our understanding of an uprising than help it.
I understand the situation in London is evolving, and that the political and cultural environment dramatically differs from that within North Africa and the Middle East’s “Arab Spring.” But I remain curious as to why, just like the “Arab Spring,” so much attention is placed on social media in this protest. My recent research has focused on tracing the paths and voices of Egyptian citizens and activists, trying to answer the question of how and to what extent social media has shaped the political landscape in the Arab world’s most populous country. My time there convinces me that neither social media technologies nor the youth that use them are the main driver of the masses that overtook the streets of many cities in Egypt from January 25th onward.
Revolutions and riots pre-date social media. Deep unrest, a history of oppositional organizing, economic downturns, corruption, and the relatively neutral position of the military are all factors that have impacted Egypt. These far more dramatically shape the realities experienced in a country with 85 million people, under 5 percent of whom use Facebook and 1 percent use Twitter. While activists and younger, wealthier, and educated citizens may connect with one another and build strong ties via these technologies, legitimate grievances and community organizing more directly played a role in mobilizing the masses. Confronting these grievances by cutting off or hacking a communication technology, as one British lawmaker said should be done to Blackberry in London, fails to address the deep-rooted dissatisfaction that drove people to take to the streets. The Egypt case shows that when a regime cuts Internet, television, and mobile phone networks, protester numbers may actually increase.
Yet it is equally shortsighted to dismiss the power of YouTube videos, Tweets, Facebook groups, and mobile phones in shaping journalism, communication between activists, and on-the-ground mobile communication. When people act out they naturally use available media and, in the case of London, these would include technologies like Blackberry messaging. While in Egypt, fewer protesters directly engaged with these technologies, but they still influenced journalism and the direct communication patterns of a select few.
For example, different groups sharing common grievances can “like” each others’ Facebook pages and merge memberships without confronting emergency laws. Opinions and tactics introduced via Twitter can be rapidly re-tweeted and sourced as stories by domestic and international journalists. Activists can share tips and techniques with one another, and co-organize. Tunisian Mohamed Bouazizi can immolate himself in protest of a corrupt regime and impact both his own people as well as neighbors in Egypt — thanks to the ways in which video was captured and transmitted via mobile phones before being picked up by non-State-run television channels.
Social media are part of a much larger matrix of tools and intentions that rally masses. That said, they are neither necessary nor sufficient to make a revolution possible. By fixating on technologies and the few youth that actively use them, we ignore a much more powerful narrative — the story of how synergies are created between classes to mobilize as a network without depending on social media. In Egypt, these networks may include family connections, neighborhoods, mosques, and historical institutions, such as the previously banned Muslim Brotherhood. New technologies hardly erode or overwhelm these classic models of communication and information sharing.
The story of Egypt presents an example of how a shared desire to end a corrupt regime can bring together peoples from all walks of life. And learning from Egypt allows us to understand how complex networks form, sustain, and present possibilities for people to collectively imagine and take hold of their political and economic futures.
In light of this, let’s avoid making the same mistake in London.
By being so quick to blame social media for political and social unrest, we ignore the powerful economic and political grievances that drive discontent. With or without these technologies, people will ultimately stand up and speak their minds. If we continue to focus on technologies rather than peoples, we risk ignoring the source of their grievances and the more complex, organic networks by which they choose to communicate.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
MESSAGE TO THE TEA PARTY
Message to the Tea Party - What took you so long to get angry?
You didn’t get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.
You didn’t get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate Energy policy and push us to invade Iraq .
You didn’t get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed.
You didn’t get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.
You didn’t get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.
You didn’t get mad when we spent over 800 billion (and counting) on said illegal war.
You didn’t get mad when Bush borrowed more money from foreign sources than the previous 42 Presidents combined.
You didn’t get mad when over 10 billion dollars in cash just disappeared in Iraq .
You didn’t get mad when you found out we were torturing people.
You didn’t get mad when Bush embraced trade and outsourcing policies that shipped 6 million American jobs out of the country.
You didn’t get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.
You didn’t get mad when we didn’t catch Bin Laden and botched the war in Afghanistan .
You didn’t get mad when Bush rang up 10 trillion dollars in combined budget and current account deficits.
You didn’t get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed.
You didn’t get mad when we let a major US city, New Orleans , drown.
You didn’t get mad when we gave people who had more money than they could spend, the filthy rich, over a trillion dollars in taxbreaks.
You didn’t get mad with the worst 8 years of job creations in several decades.
You didn’t get mad when over 200,000 US Citizens lost their lives because they had no health insurance.
You didn’t get mad when lack of oversight and regulations from the Bush Administration caused US Citizens to lose 12 trillion dollars in investments, retirement, and home values.
No…..You finally got mad
When a black man was elected President and decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick.
Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, job losses by the millions, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, and the worst economic disaster since 1929 are all okay with you, but helping fellow Americans who are sick…not a chance.
I am proud to stand in opposition to you and your Teabagging nonsense, and will not stand by and see you drag our country to your base level.
You didn’t get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.
You didn’t get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate Energy policy and push us to invade Iraq .
You didn’t get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed.
You didn’t get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.
You didn’t get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.
You didn’t get mad when we spent over 800 billion (and counting) on said illegal war.
You didn’t get mad when Bush borrowed more money from foreign sources than the previous 42 Presidents combined.
You didn’t get mad when over 10 billion dollars in cash just disappeared in Iraq .
You didn’t get mad when you found out we were torturing people.
You didn’t get mad when Bush embraced trade and outsourcing policies that shipped 6 million American jobs out of the country.
You didn’t get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.
You didn’t get mad when we didn’t catch Bin Laden and botched the war in Afghanistan .
You didn’t get mad when Bush rang up 10 trillion dollars in combined budget and current account deficits.
You didn’t get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed.
You didn’t get mad when we let a major US city, New Orleans , drown.
You didn’t get mad when we gave people who had more money than they could spend, the filthy rich, over a trillion dollars in taxbreaks.
You didn’t get mad with the worst 8 years of job creations in several decades.
You didn’t get mad when over 200,000 US Citizens lost their lives because they had no health insurance.
You didn’t get mad when lack of oversight and regulations from the Bush Administration caused US Citizens to lose 12 trillion dollars in investments, retirement, and home values.
No…..You finally got mad
When a black man was elected President and decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick.
Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, job losses by the millions, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, and the worst economic disaster since 1929 are all okay with you, but helping fellow Americans who are sick…not a chance.
I am proud to stand in opposition to you and your Teabagging nonsense, and will not stand by and see you drag our country to your base level.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)