text:
I'm kinda maybe possibly sorta running out of ideas of things to write about.
Or at least things I can write about with a highly limited time-frame and a brain that is rapidly losing its ability to function.
What is it with superpowers and the colour green, anyway? Green Lantern, Green Arrow, Green Hornet, Green Goblin, Jade, The Hulk, She-Hulk, The Riddler, Beast Boy, Martian Manhunter, The Scorpion, The Lizard, etc.
Like, I know is green is like, a totally sweet colour and all, but this is a little weird.
It's sort of like the weird tendency for mutants to be blue.
There's one interesting connection between the whole trans thing and the skeptic thing that I don't think I ever quite took a chance to talk about, and that's how being trans can teach a lot about intellectual humility.
An hour or something (I have no idea anymore) ago I followed a pingback to a webboard called rationalskepticism. There, out of curiosity, I clicked through to the sociology page, where I saw a thread titled "Five year old boy wants to become a girl!"
I suppose from the way it was framed, and the overall attitude evident in how the board was structured, I already knew what I was likely to find there. But still, it was depressing. The OP was a link back to some horrible fear-mongering Telegraph article (that consistently gendered the trans girl in question as male), and seemed completely geared around trying to provoke outrage rather than any actual compassionate attempts at understanding the situation. For instance, it included an obviously "SHOCKING" reference to how the kid had allegedly indicated the desire to perform a self-penectomy.
Albeit with less formal, polite language.
The couple people who'd commented in the thread at "rationalskepticism" took the bait and ran with it. The OP suggested "Isn't this just 'dress-up' with the parents, like, horribly overreacting?" (yeah, because I'm sure it's the parents promoting the idea of transition, and the child who needs convincing…right.)
Another commenter said "If this kid is trying to cut his penis off, he obviously has much deeper issues than 'gender identity disorder' [yes, commenter put it in scare quotes]. What he needs is extensive therapy, not a sex change"
I get so immensely disappointed, so terribly frequently, by what a huge percentage of self-professed skeptics turn out to be nothing but stubborn, arrogant, close-minded, loudly opinionated assholes who can't be bothered to put the bare minimum effort into actually learning about the subjects on which they wish to profess their "rational" opinions.
Being trans, you end up seeing on a painfully consistent basis the degree to which people can be so incredibly over-confident, so stubbornly opinionated, so convinced of the rightness of their perspective, and yet so ridiculously ignorant… so unwilling to bother learning about what they assume themselves to already know everything pertinent about… so capable of believing that the tiny scraps of information they happen to have accidentally absorbed from the culture as a whole represent an even remotely capable understanding of an issue.
We're constantly exposed to how much a person can think they understand something without even understanding how incredibly little they understand.
I think there's a valuable lesson in there that goes well beyond trans issues.
If other people can be so opinionated and over-confident in their interpretations of trans issues at the same time as having absolutely no idea what they're talking about, surely this is how people can act about all kinds of things.
What subjects do we think we understand when we don't even know enough to realize our ignorance? How many of the opinions we so confidently express are actually completely misguided?
There's also the issue of the media, of course.
Every single time I read a mainstream news story about something pertaining to transgenderism, they make AT LEAST one glaring inaccuracy, or glaringly misleading remark, or glaringly offensive misrepresentation. Every time. Really.
So if jouranlists are that sloppy about trans issues… and trans issues just happens to be one of the subjects we know enough about to spot the inaccuracies…
Why the hell are we willing to trust them on anything else?
As if transgenderism is the ONLY subject on which journalists are that lazy and ignorant?
There's a lot to learn from this about approaching things critically. About remembering how flawed human perspectives can be, and remembering to maintain a constant doubt and hesitation. Not only in doubting what we hear from media and others, but also doubting ourselves, and our own confidence in our perspectives.
Transgenderism isn't something that humans are exceptionally silly about. It just happens to be one of the few things I know enough about to actually notice when people are being silly about it.
It makes sense to assume people are just as poorly informed, but just as eager to confidently express opinions, about pretty much everything else too.
Be careful, yeah?
Remember my motto:
"Skepticism. It helps."


text:
Another aspect of the Sewing Summit that I love is meeting people in real life that I have interacted with online for years, such as Anna and Audrie and a host of many others. Such a treat. (And look at that, I even remembered to pull out my camera occasionally.) A HUGE thank you to the Sewing Summit planners and staff for all of their hard work. I can't imagine the time and effort that goes into putting something like this together!
I continue to marvel at the talent of so many great people in the sewing community. I came home and told my husband how blessed I feel to have found real-life people who like petting, cutting and sewing fabric as much as I do and who have become real-life friends. (I'll admit, the swag and listening to cool people like Joel Dewberry [above] are nice aspects as well.)
I have to say, I'm always a little leary of writing posts like this because the last thing I want to do is sound like, "Neener, neener, look where I was…" So let me end by encouraging you to reach out to real-life people, whether online, or better yet, in your local community and find ways to facilitate getting together to sew and visit – sometimes those small groups are the best kind!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
In the first hour of his filibuster over the nomination of John Brennan, Sen. Paul spoke 9,024 words, enough to fill 15 pages as a standard Word document. A transcript of the first hour was provided by Sen. Paul's office and appears below in its entirety:
I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan's nomination for the CIA I will speak until I can no longer speak. I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court. That Americans could be killed in a cafe in San Francisco or in a restaurant in Houston or at their home in bowling green, Kentucky, is an abomination. It is something that should not and cannot be tolerated in our country. I don't rise to oppose John Brennan's nomination simply for the person. I rise today for the principle. The principle is one that as Americans we have fought long and hard for and to give up on that principle, to give up on the bill of rights, to give up on the Fifth Amendment protection that says that no person shall be held without due process, that no person shall be held for a capital offense without being indicted. This is a precious American tradition and something we should not give up on easily. They say Lewis Carroll is fiction. Alice never fell down a rabbit hole and the White Queen's caustic judgments are not really a threat to your security. Or has America the beautiful become Alice's wonderland? 'No, no, said the queen. Sentence first; verdict afterwards. Stuff and nonsense, Alice said widely – loudly. The idea of having the sentence first? 'Hold your tongue, said the queen, turning purple. I won't, said Alice. Release the drones, said the Queen, as she shouted at the top of her voice.
Lewis Carroll is fiction, right? When I asked the President, can you kill an American on American soil, it should have been an easy answer. It's an easy question. It should have been a resounding and unequivocal, "no." The President's response? He hasn't killed anyone yet. We're supposed to be comforted by that.
The President says, I haven't killed anyone yet. He goes on to say, and I have no intention of killing Americans. But I might. Is that enough? Are we satisfied by that? Are we so complacent with our rights that we would allow a President to say he might kill Americans? But he will judge the circumstances, he will be the sole arbiter, he will be the sole decider, he will be the executioner in chief if he sees fit. Now, some would say he would never do this. Many people give the President the – you know, they give him consideration, they say he's a good man. I'm not arguing he's not. What I'm arguing is that the law is there and set in place for the day when angels don't rule government. Madison said that the restraint on government was because government will not always be run by angels. This has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with whether the President is a Democrat or a Republican. Were this a Republican President, I'd be here saying exactly the same thing. No one person, no one politician should be allowed to judge the guilt, to charge an individual, to judge the guilt of an individual and to execute an individual. It goes against everything that we fundamentally believe in our country.
This isn't even new to our country. There's 800 years of English law that we found our tradition upon. We founded it upon the Magna Carta from 1215. We founded it upon Morgan from Glamorgan and 725 A.D. We founded upon the Greeks and Romans who had juries. It is not enough to charge someone to say that they are guilty.
Now, some might come to this floor and they might say, "Well, what if we're being attacked on 9/11? What if there are planes flying at the Twin Towers?" Obviously, we repel them. We repel any attack on our country.
If there's a gentleman or a woman with a grenade launcher attacking our buildings or our Capitol, we use lethal force. You don't get due process if you're involved with actively attacking us, our soldiers or our government. You don't get due process if you're overseas in a battle shooting at our soldiers. But that's not what we're talking about. The Wall Street Journal reported and said that the bulk of the drone attacks are signature attacks. They don't even know the name of the person. A line or a caravan is going from a place where we think there are bad people to a place where we think they might commit harm and we kill the caravan, not the person. Is that the standard that we will now use in America? Will we use a standard for killing Americans to be that we thought – killing Americans to be that we thought you were bad, we thought you were coming from a meeting of bad people and you were in a line of traffic and so, therefore, you were fine for the killing? That is the standard we're using overseas. Is that the standard we're going to use here?
I will speak today until the President responds and says no, we won't kill Americans in cafes; no, we won't kill you at home in your bed at night; no, we won't drop bombs on restaurants. Is that so hard? It's amazing that the President will not respond. I've been asking this question for a month. It's like pulling teeth to get the President to respond to anything. And I get no answer.
The President says he hasn't done it yet and I'm to be comforted, you are to be comforted in your home, you are to be comforted in your restaurant, you are to be comforted on-line communicating in your e-mail that the President hasn't killed an American yet on the homeland. He says he hasn't done it yet. He says he has no intention to do so. Hayek said that nothing distinguishes arbitrary government from a government that is run by the whims of the people than the rule of law. The law's an amazingly important thing, an amazingly important protection. And for us to give up on it so easily really doesn't speak well of what our founding fathers fought for, what generation after generation of American soldiers have fought for, what soldiers are fighting for today when they go overseas to fight wars for us. It doesn't speak well of what we're doing here to protect the freedom at home when our soldiers are abroad fighting for us, that we say that our freedom's not precious enough for one person to come down and say, enough's enough, Mr. President. Come clean, come forward and say you will not kill Americans on American soil. The oath of office of the President says that he will, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. He raises his hand, his right hand, puts his left hand on the bible, and he says, "i will." The President doesn't say, "I intend to if it's convenient." "I intend to, unless circumstances dictate otherwise." The President says, "I will defend the Constitution, I will protect the Constitution." There isn't room for equivocation here, Mr. President. This is something that is so important, so fundamental to our country that he needs to come forward. When Brennan, whose nomination I am opposing today, was asked directly, "is there any limit to your killing? Is there any geographic limitation to your drone strike program?" Brennan responded and said, no, there is no limitation. So the obvious question would be, if there's no limitation to whom you can kill and where you can kill and there's no due process upon whom you will kill, does that mean you will do it in America? So the Senator from Oregon asked him that question directly in committee. And this so-called champion of transparency, this so-called advocate of some kind of process responded to the senator from Oregon by saying, "I plan to optimize secrecy and optimize transparency." Gobbledygook.
You wer will you kill Americans on American soil? Answer the question. Our laws forbid the CIA From doinghat. It should have been an easy question. The 1947 national security act says the CIA Doesn't operate in our country. We have the FBI. We have rules. We have separated powers to protect your rights. That's what government was organized to do. That's what the Constitution was put in place to do. To protect your rights. So when asked, he says, no answer. He says, "I will evade your answer." And by letting him come forward, we let him get away with it. So I have hounded and hounded and hounded, and finally yesterday I get a response from Mr. Brennan, who wishes to be the CIA Chief, and he finally says, I will obey the law. Well, hooray. Good for him. It took a month to get him to admit that he will obey the law. But it's not so simple.
You see, the drone strike program is under the department of defense, so when the CIA Says they're not going to kill you in America, they're not saying the defense department won't. So Eric Holder sent a response, the attorney general, and his response says, "haven't killed anyone yet. I don't intend to kill anyone but I might." And he pulls out examples that really aren't under consideration. There is the use of lethal force that can always be repelled. If our country is attacked, the President has the right to defend and protect the country. Nobody questions that. Nobody questions if planes are flying towards the Twin Towers whether they can be repulsed by the military. Nobody questions whether a terrorist with a rocket launcher or a grenade launcher is attacking us, whether they can be repelled. They don't get their day in court. But if you are sitting in a cafeteria in Dearborn, Mich., if you happen to be an Arab-American who has a relative in the Middle East and you communicate with them by e-mail and somebody says, oh, your relative is someone we suspect of being associated with terrorism, is that enough to kill you? For goodness sakes, wouldn't we try to arrest and come to the truth by having a jury and a presentation of the facts on both sides of the issue? See, the real problem here, one of the things we did a long time ago is we separated the police power from the judicial power. This was an incredibly important first step. We also prevented the military from acting in our country because we didn't want to have a police state. One of the things that we greatly objected to at the British was they were passing out what were called general writs or writs of assistance. These were warrants that allowed them to go into a house but allowed them to go into anyone's house. And so what we did when we wrote our Constitution is we – we made the Constitution, we made the fourth amendment specific to the person and the place and the things to be looked for. We didn't like the soldiers going willy-nilly into any house and looking for anything. So we made our Constitution much more specific.
I think this is something we shouldn't give up on so easily. I think that the idea that we can deprive someone of their life without any kind of hearing, essentially allowing a politician. I'm not casting any aspersions on the President. I'm not saying he is a bad person at all, but he is not a judge. He's a politician. He was elected by a majority, but the majority doesn't get to decide who we execute. We have a process for deciding this. We have courts for deciding this, to allow one man to accuse you in secret, you never get notified you have been accused. Your notification is the buzz of the propellers on the drone as it flies overhead in the seconds before you're killed. Is that what we really want from our government? Are we so afraid of terrorism, are we so afraid of terrorists that we're willing to just throw out our rights and our freedoms, things that have been fought for and that we have gotten over the centuries.
At least 800 years if not 1,000 years' worth of protection. Originally, the protections were against a monarch. We feared a monarch. We didn't like having a monarch. We came to this country, so when we set up our presidency, there was a great deal of alarm, there was a great deal of fear over having a king, and so we limited the executive branch. Madison wrote in the federalist papers, he said that the Constitution states what history demonstrates, that the executive branch is the branch most prone to war, most likely to go to war, and therefore we – we took that power to declare war and we vested it in the legislature. We broke up the powers. Montesquieu wrote about the checks and balances and the separation of powers. He was somebody who Jefferson looked towards. They separated the powers because there was a chance for abuse of power when power resides in one person. Montesquieu said there can be no liberty when you combine the executive and the legislative. I would say something similar. There can be no liberty when you combine the executive and the judiciary. That's what we're doing here. We're allowing the President to be the accuser in secret and we're allowing him to be the judge and we're allowing him to be the jury. No man should have that power. We should fear that power. Not because we have to say oh, we fear the current President. It has nothing to do with who the President is. It has nothing to do with whether you're a Republican or Democrat. It has to do with whether or not you fear the consolidation of power, were you – whether you fear power being given to one person, whether they are a Republican or a Democrat. This is not necessarily a right-left issue.
Kevin Gosztola who writes at FireDogLake, writes the mere fact that the President's answer to this question, whether you can kill an American on American soil, that the President's answer was yes is outrageous. However, it fits the framework for fighting a permanent global war on terrorism without any geographic limitations, which the present administration, President Obama's administration has maintained that it has the authority to waive. What's important here is that we're talking about a war without geographic limitations, but we're also talking about a war without temporal limitations. There is no limit, no limit in time to this war. When will this war end? It's a war that has, I think, an infinite timeline. So if you're going to suspend your rights, if there is going to be no geographic limits to killing, which really means we're not at war in Afghanistan, we're at war everywhere and everybody that pops up is called al-Qaida now, whether they have ever heard of al-Qaida or not, whether they have any communication with some kind of network of al-Qaida, everybody is al-Qaida, but there is a new war or an ongoing war everywhere in the world, there is no limitations.
Glenn Greenwald has written also about this subject, and he was speaking at the freedom to connect conference, and he says there is a theoretical framework being built that posits that the U.S. Government has unlimited power. Some caw this inherent power. Inherent means it isn't – it hasn't been defined anywhere, it hasn't been expressly given to the government. They have just decided this is their power, they are going to grab it and take what they can get. This isn't new. The Bush Administration did some of this, too. When the Bush Administration tried to grab power, though on the left and some of us on the right were critical. When they tried to wiretap phones without a warrant, we raised a ruckus. Many on the right and many on the left. There was a loud outcry against President Bush for usurping, going across due process, not allowing due process, not obeying the restraints of warrants. Where is that outcry now? Glenn Greenwald writes – "there is a theoretical framework being built that posits that the U.S. Government has unlimited power. When it comes to any kind of threats it perceives, it makes the judgment to take whatever action against them that it warrants without any constraints or limitations of any kind." As Greenwald suggests – this is going back to Gosztola words, as Greenwald suggests, answering yes to the question that you can kill Americans on American soil illustrates the real radicalism that the government has embraced in terms of how it uses its own power. To think that we were opposed to them listening to your conversations without a warrant but no one's going to stand up and say they can kill you without a warrant, a judge's review or a jury, no one's going to object to that, where is the cacophony that stood up and said how can you tap my phone without going to a judge first? I ask how can you kill someone without going to a judge or a jury?
Are we going to give up our rights to politicians, to any politician of any stripe, are we going to give up the right to decide who lives and who dies? Gosztola goes on to say that the reason the administration didn't want to answer yes or no to this question of can you kill Americans on American soil is because he says that a no answer would jeopardize the critical theoretical foundation that they have very carefully constructed that says there are no cognizable constraints on how U.S. Government power can be asserted.
Civil libertarians once expected more from the President. In fact, it was one of the things that I liked about the President. I'm a Republican. I didn't vote or support the President either time, but I admired him, particularly in 2007 when he ran. I admired his ability to stand up and say we won't torture people, that's not what America does. How does the President's mind work, though? The President that seemed so honorable, seemed so concerned with our rights, seemed so concerned with the right not to have your phone be tapped now says he's not concerned with whether you can be killed without a trial. The leap of logic is so fantastic as to boggle the mind. Where is the Barack Obama of 2007? Has the presidency so transformed him that he has forgotten his moorings, forgotten what he stood for? Civilian libertarians once expected more from the President. Ask any civil libertarian whether or not the President should have the right to arbitrarily kill Americans on American soil and the answer is easy. Of course, no President should have the right or that power under the Constitution.
Now, Brennan has responded in committee that the CIA Now does not have the right to do it on American soil. The problem is that this program is under the department of defense, so it's once again an evasive answer, not answering the true question will the government of America kill Americans on American soil? Gosztola from FireDogLake writes there may never be a targeted killing of a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil and the question of whether a U.S. citizen could be targeted and killed on U.S. soil may remain a hypothetical question for some time, but the fact that the Obama Administration has told a U.S. Senator that there is a circumstance where the government could target and kill an American citizen on American soil without charge or without trial is a stark example of an imperial presidency. This is what our Founding Fathers wanted to fight against. They wanted to limit the role and the power of the President. They wanted to check the President's power with the power of the Senate, with the power of the house, with the power of the judiciary. Three co-equal branches. Not one of them should be able to run roughshod on the other.
The problem has become is that we have allowed this to happen. Not me personally but Congress in general has allowed the President to usurp this power. If there were an ounce of courage in this body, I would be joined by many other senators saying that they will not tolerate this, that we will come together today in bipartisan fashion and tell the President, tell any President that no President will ever have the authority to kill Americans without a trial. Now, when the President says he doesn't intend to do so, you really have to think that through.
The President a year ago lined up – signed a law that says that you can be detained indefinitely, that you can be sent from America to Guantanamo Bay without a trial, and he wants us to be comforted, he wants us to remember and think good of him because he says I don't intend to do so. It's not enough. I mean, would you tolerate a Republican who stood up and said well, I like the First Amendment, I'm quite fond of the First Amendment, and I don't intend to break the First Amendment but I might. Would conservatives tolerate someone who said I like the Second Amendment? I think it's important and I am for gun ownership and I don't intend to violate the Second Amendment, but I might. Would we tolerate that he doesn't intend to do so as a standard? We have to think about the standards being used overseas. The President finally admitted they interviewed him at Google not too long ago, they interviewed him and asked him can you kill Americans at home and he was evasive and he said but if there are rules, he said the rules would be different outside than inside. Well, I certainly hope so. Outside the United States, the rules for killing are you can kill someone through a signature strike. We don't have to know what your name is, who you are, who you're with. If you're in a line of traffic and we think you're going from talking to bad people to talking to other bad people, we'll kill you. I mean, is that going to be the standard in America? Now, when they are questioned about 'have you killed civilians in your drone strikes?', they say no, but they don't count you as a civilian if you're a male or if you're between the ages of 16 and 50, you're a potential and a probable combatant if that's your age range.
So my question is if you're not a civilian, if you're in proximity to bad people, is that the standard we're going to use in the United States? So if we're going to kill Americans on American soil and the standard is going to be signature strikes that you're close to bad people or that you're in the same proximity as bad people, would that be enough? Are we happy with that standard? Are we hap that we have no jury, no trial, no charges, nothing done publicly? In Eric Holder's response, the attorney general's response to me, they maintain they're not going to do this, just trust them. It's not really about them, know. It is about the law. The law restrains everyone equally, regardless of your party, whether you're Republican or Democrat. The law is out there for the time when somebody inadvertently elects a really bad person.
You know, when World War II ended, the currency was being destroyed in Germany in 1923, the paper money became so worthless that people wheeled it in wheelbarrows. They burned it for fuel. It became virtually worthless overnight. The beginning of September 1923, the paper, I think it was like 10, 15 marks for a loaf of bread. September 14, it was a thousand marks. September 30, it was 100,000 marks. October 15, it was a couple of million marks for a loaf of bread.
It was a chaotic situation. Out of that chaos, Hitler was elected, Democratically. They elected him out of this chaos. The point isn't that anybody in our country is Hitler. I am not accusing anybody of being that evil. It is a misused anology. In a democracy you could someday elect someone who is very evil. That's why we don't give the power to the government. And it's not an accusation of this President or anybody in this body. It's a point to be made historically that occasionally even a democracy gets it wrong. So when a democracy gets it wrong, you want the law to be there in place. You want this rule of law.
As I mentioned, Hayek said this is what distinguishes us. Heritage has an author who has written some about the oath of office. His name is Kesavin. He writes that the location and the phrasing of the oath of office for the President – this is something I explained earlier – that the President says he will protect and defend and preserve the Constitution. The oath is – you know, words are important. The oath doesn't say, "i intend to preserve, protect, and defend." It says "I will." Kesavin writes that the location and phrasing of the oath of office strongly suggests that it is not empowering but limiting. So the President doesn't take an oath of office that says, "I intend to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, but I also feel that I have inherent powers that were never mentioned by anybody that I will be the sole arbiter of interpreting what those powers are." That sounds more like a king. That's not what we wanted. We did not want a imperial presidency. What Kesavin suggests is that the oath of office is not empowering but that it is limiting, that the clause limits the President and how the President can execute or how the executive power can be exercised. One unanswered word in that Constitution includes the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. What does the Fifth Amendment say? The Fifth Amendment says that no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury. It is pretty explicit.
The Fifth Amendment protects you, it protects from you a king placing you in the tower, but it also should protect from you a President that might kill you with a drone. We were granted due process. It's not always easy to sort out the details of who is a threat to the country and who's not a threat to the country. If it were people with grenade launchers on their shoulder, that's easy. And in fact I agree completely … You don't get due process if you're actively attacking America. But you have to realize that there have been reports that over half of the drone strikes overseas are not even directed towards an individual; they are directed towards a caravan of unnamed individuals. You also have to realize that overseas I have no problems if people are shooting at American soldiers, by all means, they get no due process. But you also have to realize that many – we don't know because they won't tell us the number – but many of the drone strikes overseas are done when you're walking – I don't know where you are a walking … To church, you're walking along the road – they're done when you're in a car driving, they're done when you're in a house eating. They're done when you're at a restaurant eating. They're done when you're in a house sleeping. I am saying that they're not actively involved in something that's an imminent threat and if they were in America, they would be arrested.
If we think you are a terrorist in America we should arrest you. But here's the question: You who is a terrorist? That's why I've been so concerned about a lot around here who say that if you're associated with terrorism that your government has already put out things that I think are of questionable nature. The Bureau of Justice put out a bulletin within the last year describing people who you need to be worried about. These are the people that you're supposed to say something. If you say something, you're supposed to say something. Who are these terrorists that live among you?
People who might be missing fingers on one hand, people who might have stains on their clothing, people who might have changed the color of their hair, people who like to pay in cash, people who own more than one gun, people who own weatherized ammunition, people who have seven days of food in their house. These are people that you should be afraid of and that you should report to your government. So says your government. Are they going to be on the drone strike list? I think we need to get an answer from the President.
If you're going to kill people in America, we need rules, and we need to know what your rules are. Because I certainly don't want to have seven days of food in my house if that's on the list to terrorism. Interestingly, on government websites there are some government websites that advise you to have it in your house. If you live in a hurricane-prone area you're supposed to keep some area food around. Who is going to decide when it's okay to have food in your house and when it's not?
There's something called fusion centers, something that are supposed to coordinate between the federal government, the local government to find terrorists. The one in Missouri a couple years ago came up with a list and they sent this to every policemen in Missouri. The people on the list might be me. The people on the list from the fusion center in Missouri that you need to be worried about, that policemen should stop, are people that have bumper stick theirs might be pro-life, who have bumper stickers that might be for more border security, people who support third-party candidates, people who might be in the Constitution party. Oooh, isn't there some irony there.
You believe in the Constitution so much, you might be a terrorist – you believe in the Constitution so much, you might be a terrorist. We need to be concerned about this. Things are not so black and white. If someone is shooting at us, a canon, a missile, a rocket, a plane, it is pretty easy to know what lethal attacks are. We're talking about people in their homes, at a restaurant, or a cafe that someone is making an accusation. If the accusation is based on how many fingers you have on your hand, I have got a problem with that standard. If the standard to be used for killing Americans is whether you pay in cash, I've got a problem with that. If the standard to be used in America is being close to someone who is bad or the government thinks is bad is enough for you to be killed and not even account you as an accidental kill, to count you as combatant because you were near them – see, here's the problem, and this is no passing problem; this is an important problem.
There was a man named al-Awlaki. He was a bad guy, by all evidence available to the public that I've read, he was treasonous. I have no sympathy for his death. I still would have tried him in a federal court for treason and I think you could have been executed. But his son was 16 years old, had missed his dad, gone for two years. His son sneaks out of the house and goes to Yemen. His son is then killed by a drone strike. They won't tell us if he was targeted. Suspect, since there were other people in the group, about 20 people killed, that they were targeting someone else. I don't know that. I don't have inside information on that. But I suspect that.
But here's the real problem: When the President's spokesman was asked about al-Awlaki's son, you know what his response was? This I find particularly callous and particularly troubling. The President's response to the killing of al-Awlaki's son, he said he should have chosen more responsible father.
You know, it's kind of hard to choose who your parents are. That's sort of like saying to someone whose father is a thief or a murderer or a rapist, which is obviously a bad thing, but does that mean it's okay to kill their children think of the standard we would have if our standard for killing people overseas is, you should have chosen a more responsible parent.
It just boggles the mind and really affects me to think that that would be our standard. There's absolutely no excuse for the President not to come forward on this. I've been asking for a month for an answer. It's like pulling teeth to get any answer from the President. Why is that? Because he doesn't want to answer the question the way he should, as a good and moral and upstanding and someone who believes in the Constitution should; that absolutely no – no American should ever be killed in America who's I thinking in a cafe. No American should ever be killed in their house without a warrant and some kind of aggressive behavior by them. To be bombed in your sleep? There's nothing American about that. There's nothing Constitutional about that. But he says trust him. He says he hasn't done it yet. He says he doesn't intend to do so, but he might. Mr. President, that's not just good enough. That's not enough – it's not enough for me to be placated. It's not enough for me to be quiet.
So I have a come here today to speak for as long as I can – I won't be able to speak forever. But I'm going to speak as long as I can to draw attention to something that I find really disturbing. People ask about this nomination process, because I've actually voted for a couple of the President's nominees, some of whom I've objected to coming of whom I've had personal as well as political differences. This is not about partisanship. I voted for the Secretary of State, John Kerry. I've almost nothing in common with him politically. I have disagreed with him repeatedly on the floor. But gave the President the prerogative of choosing his secretary of state, because I think the President won the election. He deserves to get to make some choices on who is in his cabinet. I voted for the very controversial Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. There were things liked about him, things I disliked about him. I filibustered him twice before I voted to let him go forward. And people in my party given me a hard time, conservatives from my party have blasted me for doing that. But I gave the President that prerogative. So I'm not standing down here as a Republican who will never vote for a Democrat. I voted for the first two – I voted for the first three nominees by the President. This is not about partisanship. I have allowed the President to pick his political appointees, but I will not sit quietly and let him shred the Constitution. I cannot sit at my desk quietly and let the President say he will kill Americans on American soil who are not actively attacking the country.
The answer should be so easy. I cannot imagine that he will not expressly come forward and say, no, I will not kill Americans on American soil.
The Fifth Amendment says that no person shall be held for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on the presentment or indictment of a grand jury. It goes on to say that no person will be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. Now, some hear "due process" – and if you're not a lawyer, I am not a lawyer – when you first hear that you think, what does that mean? What does it mean to have due process? What it means is you're protected. You get protections. Is our justice system perfect? No.
Sometimes you go all the way through due process in our country. We've actually convicted people innocent. Fortunately it's very rare, but think about that. We've actually convicted people who are innocent.
What are the chances that the President going through PowerPoint slideshows and flash cards might make a mistake and innocent or guilty? I would say there is a chance. Even our judicial system, it goes through all of these processes with the judge reviewing the indictment, with a jury reviewing it, then with the sentencing phase, with all of that going forward, we sometimes make mistakes. What are the chances that one man, one politician, no matter what part they're from, could make a mistake on this? I think there's a real chance that that exists. That's why we put these rules in place. Patrick Henry wrote that the Constitution wasn't given or written or put down to restrain you. The Constitution was to restrain us. There's always been, since the beginning of time, since we first had government, this desire to restrain the government, to try to keep the government from going too strong, to keep the government from taking your rights. It's interesting when you look at the Constitution, the Constitution gave what are called enumerated powers to government, and Madison said that these enumerated powers few and defined. The liberties you were given, though, are numerous and enumerated. Unlimited. So it is about 17 powers given to government which we've now transformed into about a gazillion or at least a million new. We don't pay much attention to the enumerated powers for the Constitution anymore. But the Constitution left your rights as unenumerated. Your rights are limitless. So when we get to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, it says specifically that those rights not granted to your government are left to the states and the people respectively. It didn't list what those rights are.
The 14th Amendment talks about privileges and immunities are left you to also. They're to be protected. But I don't think there is a person in America – that's why I can't understand the President's unwillingness to say, he's not going to kill noncombatants. Think about that. He's unwilling to say publicly that he's not going to kill noncombatants, because that's what we're talking about here. I'm not talking about someone with a bazooka a grenade launcher on their shoulder. Anyone committing lethal force can be repelled with lethal force. No one argues that point.
I'm talking about whether you can kill noncombatants, because many of the people being killed overseas are noncombatants. Are they potential combatants? Maybe. Maybe the standard can be a – less overseas than it is here for people involved in a battle, but it's getting kind of murky overseas as well, but for goodness sakes in America, we can't just sort of have this idea that we're going to kill noncombatants. We're talking about people eating in a cafe, at home, in a restaurant. I think we need to be a little more careful.
The power that was given by the Constitution to the Senate was that of advise and consent. This Constitutional provision provides us with the power to consent to nominations or withhold consent. It's a check on the Executive Branch but it only works if we actually use it. I'm here today to speak for as long as I can hold up to try to rally support from people from both sides to say for goodness sakes, why don't we use some advice and consent? Why don't we advise the President that he should come forward and say he will not condone nor does he believe he has the authority to kill noncombatants? As a check on the Executive Branch, this power that's granted is the right to withhold consent. The Constitution doesn't provide Senators with the specifics or the criteria of why we withhold consent. That's left to us to decide. I withhold my consent today because I'm deeply concerned that the executive branch has not provided an answer, that the President refuses to say that he won't kill noncombatants. The President swore an oath to the Constitution. He said he will protect, defend and preserve the Constitution. He didn't say I intend to when it's convenient. He said I will defend the Constitution, and it's inexcusable for him not to come forward.
There is an author that writes for The Atlantic who has written a lot about the drone program by the name of Connor Friedersdorf. He recounts the tale of al-Awlaki's son who was killed, and he said when the President's spokesman was asked about the strike that killed him, the President's spokesman replied well, he would have been fine if he had had a more responsible father. If that's our standard, we have sunk to a real low. Cornered by reporters after this, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs attempted to defend the kill list, which is secret, of course. You have to remember, if we're going to kill noncombatants in America or people we think might someday be combatants, the list will be secret, so you won't get a chance to protest hey, I'm not that bad. I might have said that one time, but I'm not that bad. All right. I have objected to big government, not all government. I don't – I'm not fomenting revolution. I was critical at that meeting. I was at a tea party meeting and I was critical of the President, but I'm not a revolutionary. Please don't kill me.
Should we live in a country where you have to be worried about what you say? Should we live in a country where you have to worry about what you write? What kind of country would that be? Why is there not more moral outrage? Why is there not every senator coming down to say you're exactly right, let's go ahead and hold this nomination, and why don't we hold it until we get more clarification from the President? Connor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic writes that it's vital for the uninitiated to understand how team Obama misleads when it talks about the drone program. Ask how their kill list can be justified, Gibbs, the President's spokesman replies, when there are people who are trying to harm us and have pledged to bring terror to these shores, we have taken the fight to them.
But since the kill list itself is secret, there is no way to offer a specific counterexample. It's one thing to say yeah, these people are going to probably come and attack us, which to tell you the truth is probably not always true. There are people fighting a civil war in Yemen who probably have no conception of ever coming to America. Friedersdorf goes on to say we do know the U.S. drones are targeting people who have never pledged to carry out attacks in the United States, so we're talking about noncombatants who have never pledged to carry out attacks are being attacked overseas. Think about it, if that's going to be the standard at home, people who have never really truly been involved with combat against us. Take Pakistan where the CIA kills some people without even knowing their identities. This is more from Friedersdorf. As Obama nears the end of his term, officials said the kill list in Pakistan has slipped to fewer than ten al-Qaida targets, down from as many as two dozen, and yet we're killing hundreds of people in Pakistan.
There is a quote that I think sort of brings this and makes this very poignant. There is a quote from an ex-CIA Agent, I think it's Bruce Riedel, who says the drone strike program is sort of like a lawnmower. You can keep mowing them down, but as soon as the lawnmower stops, the grass grows again. Some people have gone one step further and said for every one you kill or maybe for every one you accidentally kill that you didn't intend to kill, 10 more spring up.
Think about it. If it were your family member and they have been killed and they were innocent or you believe them to be innocent, it's going to – is it going to make you more or less likely to become involved with attacking the United States?
I have written a couple letters to John Brennan who has been put up for the CIA nomination. It looks like the first letter was sent January 25. So here we are into March and I only got a response when he was threatened. So here's a guy who the President promotes as being transparent and wanting to give a lot of information to the American people, he won't respond to a U.S. Senator. How do they – they treat the U.S. Senate with disdain, basically. Won't even respond to us much less the American people when I asked him these questions. He finally responded only when his nomination was threatened, so when it came to the committee, and it appeared as I had bipartisan support for slowing down his nomination if he didn't answer his questions, then he answered his questions. It doesn't give me a lot of confidence that in the future going forward, if he is approved, that he is going to be real forthcoming and real transparent about this. I don't have a lot of anticipation or belief that we're going to get more information after this nomination hearing.
Some are now saying, you know, you have gotten your pound of flesh. Let him go and we'll keep working on this. The problem is once he's gone, the discussion's over. Others in my party have been trying to get information about what went horribly wrong in Benghazi and have gotten some of that information, but only by using it as leverage to try to get the President to do what is the honorable thing, and that is to be more transparent with his ways. In the first letter that I sent to Brennan, I asked him the question is it legal to order the killing of American citizens and that you would not be compelled to even give your reasoning, not even specific to the case but any of your reasoning? So finally as these questions came forward, some of the things were leaked out.
One of the most troubling things that came out is when Brennan and the President finally began to talk about the drone strike program, which according to the former press secretary they were to deny that it existed for years, when they finally came out, they told us a couple of things about their interpretation of it. One, that they have no geographic limit to their drone strikes. The second thing is they told us what they thought was imminent. And this is pretty important because a lot of Americans, myself included, believe that if we're being attacked, you can respond with lethal force, but a lot of Americans think that you have to actually be engaged in that to respond with lethal force, but they told us that the way their lawyers interpret imminent is imminent doesn't have to mean immediate. Well, only a bunch of lawyers could get together, government lawyers get together and say that imminent is not immediate.
And you have to understand and what we should be asking the President is "is this your standard for America? If you are going to assert that you have the right to kill Americans on American soil, are you going to assert, are you going to assert that your standard is that an imminent threat doesn't have to be immediate?"
I'm quite concerned when I hear this kind of evasiveness, that sort of nonresponse to questions. We also asked would it not be appropriate to require a judge or a court to review this? See, here's the real interesting thing: We had a President who ran for office saying your phone shouldn't n tapped without a warrant. – Shouldn't be tapped without a warrant. I happen to agree with candidate Obama, but what happened to candidate Obama who wanted to protect your right to privacy of your phone who doesn't care much about your right not to be killed by a drone without any kind of judicial proceeding? I think we should demand it.
The way things work around here, though, is people kind of say yes, we'll demand it and maybe later on this year we'll talk about a bill or talk about getting something. What they should do is just say no more, we're not going to move forward until we get some justice. We're not going to let the President, any President, Republican or Democrat, do this. One of the other questions I asked the President was it is paradoxical that the federal government would need to go before a judge to authorize a wiretap on U.S. citizens even overseas but possibly not have any kind of oversight of killing an American here in America. We have asked him how many citizens have been killed. We haven't gotten an answer to that. They say not many, and hopefully it hasn't been many, but I think it's important to know. I think it would be important to know if we're going to target Americans in America, if that list exists. I think it would be important to know if being close to someone is also justified. You know, just because you – what if you just happen to live in the neighborhood of somebody who is a suspected terrorist. Is it okay because you were close to them? What if you happened to go to dinner with a guy you didn't know or a woman you didn't know and the government says they're a terrorist? Just because you're having dinner with them and you are a male between the ages of 16 and 50, does that make you a combatant? We also asked the question do you condone the CIA's practice of counting civilians killed by U.S. drone strikes as militants simply because they were of the same age? Like every other question, no answer. We asked him whether al-Awlaki's son was a target. No answer. We asked how many people have been targeted. No answer. Part of the problem with this is that we are or Congress in general is sloppy about writing legislation in general. I will give you an example. When Obamacare legislation was written, it's over 2,000 pages but it leaves up to the secretary of health I think 1,800 times the power to decide at a later date what the law or the rule would be. So since Obamacare of 2,000 pages has been written, there have been now 9,000 pages of regulations. Dodd-frank is kind of the same way. Dodd-Frank was a couple thousand pages. It's now going to wind up with 8,000 or 9,000 pages of regulations.
We abdicate our responsibility by not really writing legislation. We write shells of legislation that are imprecise and don't retain the power, and because of that, the executive branch and the bureaucracy, which is essentially the same thing, do whatever they want. This happened also with the use of authorization of force in Afghanistan. This happened over 10 years ago now, 12 years ago. I thought we were going to war against the people who attacked us, and I'm all for that. I would have voted for the war. I would have preferred it to have been a declaration of war.
I think we were united in saying let's get those people who attacked us on 9/11 and make sure it never happens again. The problem is as this war has drug on, they take that authorization of use of force to mean pretty much anything. And so they have now said that the war has no geographic limitations, so it's really not a war in Afghanistan, it's a war in Yemen, Somalia, Mali. It's a war in unlimited places. Were we a body that cared about our prerogative to declare war, we would take that power back. But I'll tell you how poor – and this is on both sides of the aisle – how poor is our understanding or belief in retaining that power here? About a year ago, I tried to end the Iraq war. You may say, well, I thought the Iraq war was already over. It is, but we still have an authorization of use of force that says we can go to war in Iraq any time.
And since they think the use of force in Afghanistan means limitless war anywhere, any time in the whole world, for goodness sakes, wouldn't we try to take back a declaration of war, an authorization of force if the war is over? But here's the sad part. I actually got a vote on it and I think I got less than 20 votes. You can't end a war after it's over up here. And it has repercussions, because these authorizations to use force are used for many other things. So the authorization of force says you can go after al-Qaida or associated terrorists. The problem is, is that when you allow the Executive Branch to sort of determine what is al-Qaida, you've got no idea.


text:
Posted 9 years ago
(84 items)
I love rummaging through old photos and these pedal toys caught my eye. The boy in the airplane is my brother and the boy washing his station wagon is my brother-in-law. I don't know anything about the cars. Both pictures were taken in the mid to late forties. I hope I'm not in hot water for posting them. ;)


text:
|Skip Navigation Links
|Exit Print View
|System Administration Guide: Network Services Oracle Solaris 10 8/11 Information Library
Part I Network Services Topics
Part II Accessing Network File Systems Topics
4. Managing Network File Systems (Overview)
5. Network File System Administration (Tasks)
6. Accessing Network File Systems (Reference)
8. Planning and Enabling SLP (Tasks)
10. Incorporating Legacy Services
Part V Serial Networking Topics
15. Solaris PPP 4.0 (Overview)
16. Planning for the PPP Link (Tasks)
17. Setting Up a Dial-up PPP Link (Tasks)
18. Setting Up a Leased-Line PPP Link (Tasks)
Setting Up a Leased Line (Task Map)
Configuring Synchronous Devices on the Leased Line
Prerequisites for Synchronous Devices Setup
Configuring a Machine on the Leased Line
Prerequisites for Configuring the Local Machine on a Leased Line
How to Configure a Machine on a Leased Line
19. Setting Up PPP Authentication (Tasks)
20. Setting Up a PPPoE Tunnel (Tasks)
21. Fixing Common PPP Problems (Tasks)
22. Solaris PPP 4.0 (Reference)
23. Migrating From Asynchronous Solaris PPP to Solaris PPP 4.0 (Tasks)
25. Administering UUCP (Tasks)
Part VI Working With Remote Systems Topics
27. Working With Remote Systems (Overview)
28. Administering the FTP Server (Tasks)
29. Accessing Remote Systems (Tasks)
Part VII Monitoring Network Services Topics
30. Monitoring Network Performance (Tasks)
The task in this section involves configuring equipment that is required by the leased-line topology that is introduced in Example of a Configuration for a Leased-Line Link. The synchronous devices that are required to connect to the leased line include the interface and modem.
Before you perform the next procedure, you must have the following items:
Working leased line that is installed at your site by the provider
Synchronous unit (CSU/DSU)
Solaris release installed on your system
Synchronous interface card of the type that is required by your system
Follow the instructions in the manufacturer's documentation.
If necessary, connect cables from the CSU/DSU to the leased-line jack or similar connector.
Note - The provider from whom you rented the leased line might supply and configure the CSU/DSU for your link.
The configuration of the interface card involves the creation of a startup script for the interface. The router at LocalCorp in the leased-line configuration that is shown in Figure 16-2 uses an HSI/P interface card.
The following script, hsi-conf, starts the HSI/P interface.
#!/bin/ksh /opt/SUNWconn/bin/hsip_init hihp1 speed=1536000 mode=fdx loopback=no \ nrzi=no txc=txc rxc=rxc txd=txd rxd=rxd signal=no 2>&1 > /dev/null
Indicates that HSI/P is the synchronous port used
Set to indicate the speed of the CSU/DSU
See Also
To configure the local machine on the leased line, refer to How to Configure a Machine on a Leased Line.


text:
More in Best Places
20 Fairytale Villages in Europe to Visit This Year
Let's find out about the most beautiful villages that you can visit in Europe this year. Tellaro, ItalyDecember 29, 2018
10 Amazing Cities You Must Visit in Australia
Surrounded by the deep trenches of the Pacific and Indian oceans Australia is a land of magnificent wonders. Venture into this...January 23, 2017
10 Beautiful Beaches You Must Visit in Your Life
Beaches are a great getaway for people. It is a sweet escape for everyone who wants to relax and have a...January 15, 2017
10 Amazing Asia Cities You Must Visit in Your Lifetime
Asia is a mix of culture and beautiful cities. As the largest continent, you will find yourself lost for space on...January 13, 2017
10 Top Backpacking Destinations Around the World
Confused where to plan your next trip to? Here is where we have shortlisted the 10 backpacking destinations around the world...January 11, 2017
10 Waterfalls Across the World You Should Visit
There is so much beauty in the world to see and enjoy that every person must go out in the world...January 9, 2017
10 Breathtaking USA Cities You Must Visit This Year
America is a supreme place to visit. Vivid energy, beautiful sites, all kinds of people. It is really a place which...January 9, 2017
10 Breathtaking European Cities to Visit Before You Die
Paris is one city that can be found in every traveler's bucket list. The city of is the epitome of...January 8, 2017
10 Most Beautiful Villages in Europe
Tired of exploring the city life of Europe? Want to do something different this time? How about taking a vacation to...January 8, 2017


text:
Inside the Student Movement: Undeterred by Crackdown, Activists Around the Country Gear Up for Bigger Actions
Today, Monday, is not only a day of action against university budget cuts in New York City but also around the country, at places like UC-Davis, where last week students were violently pepper sprayed during a peaceful protest. Here these same students are courageously calling for a student strike that will shut down the campus and in which rallies and teach-ins about budget cuts, police brutality and non-violent action will replace normal campus activities. At UCLA there are planned protests at the Board of Regents meeting in order to force that body to change their agenda to better reflect student concerns like increasing tuition and decreased funding for the entire UC system. These actions will be done with the solidarity and support of students around the country, from Tufts University in Massachusetts to the rural Kentucky-based Owensboro Community and Technical College. These actions also occur in the context of a global student movement: for weeks in Chile protesters, spearheaded by students demanding more affordable education, have been expressing dissent against President Pinera's capital market reforms. In solidarity with these protests students around Latin America, in Argentina, Columbia, and Peru have come together to demand education reforms and stand in support of the Chilian students. Earlier this month, students in Ireland, Italy and the Phillipines staged massive protests and walk-outs over increased tuition.
Let me start by being very clear about who I am and what I do: I am a graduate student at the City University of New York in the Anthropology Department and I teach Anthropology 101 at Baruch College twice a week on Monday and Wednesday evenings. My students are younger than me and older than me. They are impressively diverse, they are mostly women of color, they work all day long and then come to class in the evening. They are tired by the time they sit down in my class and I respect this tiredness, I respect and understand that many of them have to leave early or get there late because of their job or their family and because I, just like them, am a student and a worker in a public university system.
The public university system that we are in is the third largest in the country and one that has had values of free education, accessibility and inclusivity in its inception and embedded in its history. I want to be very clear about this because in many ways our histories create our visions for the future and the history of CUNY is a history of struggle that gets to the core of what we think higher education is as well as who we think higher education should be for. Founded in 1847 as the Free Academy, the City University of New York was explicitly created to educate the poor and working class of New York City. Students fought for open admissions in 1969, a struggle that was about forcing the University to accept more non-white students and create Black and Puerto Rican Studies Departments. This struggle was won. In 1976 the University, amid years of student protests against it, imposed tuition for the first time since its foundation. Since then almost every year has been punctuated by protests over increasing tuition and proposed budget cuts. This year is the same.
But this year is also not the same. In the context of the Occupy movement, the student movement has taken off. Our movements are connected and stronger because of these connections. They are connected because they are fighting to articulate the same disconnect between power and people and to show the same connections between where our money is spent and where we want it to be spent, they show the connections between dissent and the way this dissent is violently repressed around the country and the world. In New York City and the United States Occupy Wall Street has provided the student movement with inspiration and supportIn this way Occupy Wall Street has, as Zoltan Gluck writes here: "already begun to shift the very terrain of other struggles. For student organizing it has provided a whole new framework through which to organize collectively and horizontally."
And organizing collectively and horizontally we have been: through weekly All-City Student Assemblies and General Assemblies, through a burgeoning student debt refusal movement that is calling for a million students to pledge to refuse their student debt in response to the fact that: "the student debt crisis and the dependency of U.S. higher education on debt-financing from the people it is supposed to serve. (Read more about this campaign here: http://occupystudentdebtcampaign.com/ ) And this has been happening through the very real, urgent and intensifying struggle over the current CUNY budget, a budget that calls for tuition increases every year for the next 5 years alongside cutting adjunct health insurance while simultaneously requesting millions more for security throughout the CUNY system. Fighting against this budget is the way I have translated the space for activism that Occupy Wall Street has opened up into being part of a organized on-the ground protest movement that has very real demands. This is part of how and why I was at Baruch College last Monday November 21st.
When I got to Baruch College around 5:15pm on Monday November 21st and I could immediately tell that something was wrong. The atmosphere on the street around the building was charged. I hurried over to the entrance on 25th street and students were yelling and shoving to get into the building. Something had just happened, the scene was chaotic. I saw a friend and asked: "what happened?" "We tried to go to the meeting and they beat us, they arrested people, they have David and Zoltan and Conor and others" he answered. This news sunk in, I was shocked. This wasn't supposed to happen. We wanted to protest the budget, to have a General Assembly to highlight the contradiction between direct, street democracy and "public" Board of Trustees meetings that occur in heavily securitized buildings. We didn't plan on arrests and violence. What had happened? Why had my friends been beaten and arrested?
My colleague Conor Tomás Reed, a graduate student in English at the CUNY Graduate Center and a Graduate Teaching Fellow at Baruch, described what happened in an email after he was released from jail the next day:
"As I write, my wrists are still bruised from repeatedly applied zip-ties and handcuffs, and my senses swim from the first real meal in twenty-four hours….During the insane security billyclubs melee, a guard unzipped my backpack and emptied its contents onto the floor, including a notebook with my students' grades and a CUNY library book. As I shielded myself and others, I was grabbed by several guards and thrown to the ground, pinned down with my shirt ripped and glasses broken, and had zip-ties placed around my wrists so tightly that I couldn't feel my hands. Only half an hour later…were my ties loosened. Many other detained CUNY students similarly experienced this tight cuffing and rough handling, and were otherwise in tremendous pain at the whim of a frighteningly disorganized and cocky security force. The decision for who to ultimately arrest and "put under" was based on racial profiling and confidence in the face of authority. All five of us were CUNY students of color (four men and one woman), with me also in the peculiar position of being charged with trespassing on the campus where I teach. One CUNY security officer sexually harassed the young woman in custody..."
I was not in the lobby when this happened. I didn't see this happen. What I did do is immediately after hearing that Zoltan, David, and Conor, among others had been arrested was rush around to the other entrance to the building, swipe my faculty card in and start looking around for them, it was there in the lobby that I literally bumped into a security guard with my friend David cuffed taking him towards an elevator. I followed and caught up with them. "Where are you taking them? What are they being charged with?" The security guard in plain clothes escorting the uniformed guards started to scream at me: "You are interfering with a police investigation and you better get out of here!" I am a faculty member at this school and I wanted to know where my friends were being taken, this was in front of hundreds of students. This is the way repression works outside of throwing people to the ground and hitting them, it also works to intimidate those of us who want to know what happened, to advocate for those who have been assaulted. I was and am furious.
(To read more about what happened in the lobby read the press release issued by students and faculty on Monday evening describing these events. Also view the video links included with the press release, as well as other videos that have been posted and show the scene well.)
After they put David in the elevator and away, after screaming at me, I stood there not sure what to do. Almost on a whim I took the elevator up the 14th floor where the board meeting was happening. I suddenly so badly wanted to see the meeting whose quiet running was being so brutally ensured, I wanted to see the faces of the people who were being "protected" from us, the same people who get to make the decisions about our tuition, our health insurance, our futures. In the elevator there were two security guards who looked me up and down as I got on, I pressed 14 and it didn't light up and when I looked confused they said: "Oh we control the elevator" and turned a key. I stood stock still the whole ride up. I was fuming at this small securitization, this micro-point of security culture: in order for me to even ride the elevator a security guard has to turn a key. I reminded myself that I was trying to attend a public meeting and that I had every right to do so.
On the 14th floor all seemed quiet. I signed in, took off my jacket and went through a metal detector, the bangles I was wearing set it off, as they always do, and so I was swept over by a hand-held metal detector. The door was held open for me and as I slipped in I was told to "just take any empty seat" because there are, of course, many of them. I sat down and immediately my heart fell. I don't know what I expected to find here but after coming from the passion and rage of the street outside, after seeing David being taken away in handcuffs, this meeting room felt so...disconnected. People sat in chairs facing the front of the room where around 3 large tables the Board members sat. A podium stood in front of them, with a barricade in front of it, and someone was reading a letter opposing the budget cuts. The women reading was an adjunct, she was describing what will happen to her if she loses her health insurance and as she was reading a beeping started, she only had 10 more seconds. The beeping got longer and she sat down, tears barely held back. The next name was announced.
Suddenly I recognized this feeling, this feeling of powerlessness, of disconnect from the decisions that affect my life, my heart, my imagination, my future. This moment, sitting in the Board of Trustees meeting and feeling so disconnected from any decision that will be made there, felt the same as when I stood two blocks away from Zucotti Park on eviction night and watched them toss our things into sanitation trucks, toss what we had built together into sanitation trucks. This was the same anger, fury, rage, combined with a complete disconnect and distance. I had to fight myself not to run to the podium and grab the microphone and just yell: "Do you really think this is how decisions that affect thousands of people should be made?" And as I was fighting this impulse I realized that what this movement, both the student movement and OWS has done in the past two months: it has made me and many others feel this disconnect, feel furious about it, want to change it, and to find ways to work together to change it.
(Another way this disconnect manifests itself, talking about the arrests and brutality with a senior faculty member and administrator later in the week he says to me: "those students created a safety problem, they wouldn't listen when told to clear the lobby, they brought that on themselves, if you come to a protest not expecting to get hurt you are naïve.")
I didn't rush the podium that night. I did boo when someone got up and supported the tuition increases, I did participate in a disruptive "mic check" in which one of my colleagues got up and started reading what she had written when it seemed as if she had been skipped over to speak, I did refuse to leave the meeting when I was told I was being disruptive and was then carried from the meeting by four security guards, my body limp. This is what we could do in that moment.
Since then we have been frantically organizing for Monday's Board meeting and protest at Baruch College. We are coordinating with the Professional Staff Congress, the CUNY Union faculty and staff union to come out to the streets. There are medical, legal, emotional support working groups preparing for tomorrow, there are outreach and media groups, there are faculty groups crafting letters of support. There are calls for a student strike and a picket line.
The Baruch College administration has responded by canceling classes in the building after 3pm and permitting access to the building to those with "an urgent and legitimate need to be in the building" in order to: "ensure the safety of all students, faculty and staff during the period surrounding the meeting of the CUNY Board of Trustees in the Newman Vertical Campus on Monday afternoon." This feels like a lock out, another egregrious attempt at repression of student dissent as well as a bleak example of the administration's priorities: protecting a Board meeting by canceling classes near the end of the semester and during the build up to the final exam period. As the press release put out by OccupyCUNY in response to this reads: "The campus lock-down is planned even though CUNY's own legal department shows that the meeting falls under New York State Open Meeting Law and is legally required to be open to the public, including any CUNY students who wish to attend as long as the room is at legal capacity." The full press release can be read here, along with a video rallying for tomorrow's actions.
We are calling on our faculty to support us. We are calling on our union to support us. We are calling on students to reject the increasing privatization of what should be a public good and join us. We are rejecting the securitization of our universities, of our education, we are rejecting the commodification of our universities, of our education. We are rejecting a model that attempts to convince us that a consumer model of education, where you pay for what you get, is the best one. And in doing all this we are, again, fundamentally challenging the model of society that we are supposed to be content in. We are demanding more, we are demanding a society where education is a right, where it is free, where everyone has access to it.
And we have learned, once again, that this is a real challenge to the state, to the powers that be, to those who want to maintain education for the elite and for only those who can afford it. Why else would we be surrounded by cop cars when we have meeting of the People's University in Washington Square Park? Why else would students and faculty around the country be pepper sprayed and beaten when they demand a greater voice over decisions made in these institutions, when they demand affordability and accessibility? Why else would a public meeting be in a heavily securitized building, why else would the President of Baruch cancel classes in the last weeks before finals just so that a Board meeting can occur un-interrupted? We are being met with force because we are a threat, because education as a right for everyone is a threat because we are asking for more than we have been taught to expect, because we want to stretch our imaginations about what is possible by doing so.
As we marched around the block into the evening last Monday, waiting for our friends and colleagues to be released, not knowing when they would be, not knowing which side entrance they would be brought out from but wanting to be there with open arms when they were, as the night grew later and the crowd thinned, as the chauffeured cars and taxis waiting for members of the Board of Trustees started lining the block, as the cops kept marching with us, as it got colder, through all this we kept chanting, over and over again: "Whose university? Our university!" And as we kept saying it the words became jumbled in my month and when I closed my eyes for a moment I could feel them, I could feel the ways that it could be our university, our future.
For more information about the protests tomorrow see here.


text:
It's coming up on a year that I've been working for the Shinnecock Senior Nutrition Program, serving lunches for the elders at the Family Preservation Center, washing dishes and setting tables. Shakespeare wrote that all the world's a stage. If that's so, then Shinnecock is like theater, television and the movies all rolled into one. It's "As the Rez Turns," and there are as many different stories and plots as there
are people.
In the senior lunch plotline, the lovely Mrs. E is the star of the show; she does the actual serving and entertaining, while Mrs. T, the director, Mr. B, who picks up and delivers lunches to the homebound, and I are her co-stars. But it's Mrs. E who commands all of our attention, and who we all listen to, whether we want to or not, as we try to stay on her good side…although it's anyone's guess where that might be at any time on any given day. It's a wonderful show, and every episode deserves an award.
The elders adore and love Mrs. E. They eagerly wait for her entrance from the kitchen, with a bon mot, chastising phrase or wry comment. When Mrs. E gives you one of her mischievous, dimpled smiles, it's impossible to feel anything other than special and happy. Even guest speakers and presenters fall for her charms. It's like Brooke Astor, Joan Rivers, Diana Ross and everyone's favorite aunt wrapped up in one person, working a room.
As for me, I'm doing this gig in an effort to reverse whatever bad karma I might have incurred over the last fifty-some years of living, and to show my gratitude for having been born lucky enough to be Shinnecock. I call it the blessed curse. It ain't easy sometimes, but it ain't all that bad, either.
I've traveled the world and have seen how things are "out there"—and as far as I can tell, we have it pretty damn good. We own our land and homes outright; fish, clam, crab, hunt and enjoy a pretty good standard of living. A friend says we live like millionaires without the trappings—or traps—and I agree.
Sure, we don't have the material wealth much of the population around us covets, but we do have a sense of community and belonging that can only come from being a tribal nation.
So I decided to humble and reward myself by working at what might be considered a menial job. I have college degrees and a professional license and have made more money, but I'm a lot happier this year than I have been for a long time, just listening to the seniors' laughter and Mrs. E's voice coming from the other room. It's the sound of love and respect.
Lunch starts at noon, and even if you come in early, Mrs. E doesn't serve until 12 o'clock sharp, no exceptions. The senior lunch is provided by Suffolk County, and is quite good.
Mondays and Fridays are bingo days, which are loud and exciting affairs. Some people come in early to pick over the cards to choose just the right one. The prizes are nothing spectacular, but you've never heard people get so excited over winning a package of Oreos, hand lotion, dish soap, tissues, etc., or the most coveted prize, a bottle of SunnyD.
The main reason I've taken time out from the politics and grandstanding that have consumed Shinnecock recently is this: it takes me back to a time when Shinnecock people really did take care of each other, had a meal together while talking about their families and their history, or just enjoyed each other's company, back when we still called ourselves a tribe. When we would lie in the warm road on summer nights in front of our houses and look up at the sky to count the stars and constellations and talk (there were fewer houses and cars then); when the beach was where kids and families would spend the day swimming and treading for clams; when the creek was the meeting place for teens to hang out and swim after working summer jobs. When manners and respect for elders and adults were the norm, and if you mouthed off or did wrong, someone would have called your mom before you got home. When you heard that call from different houses letting you know it was time for dinner.
It was a quiet, beautiful and, yes, peaceful place, for the most part. Quiet ruled the nights.
There was something special about being a tribal member, something not easily explained. But it seems to be slipping away.
Shinnecock is a microcosm of Southampton, America and the world, whether we like it or not. In the pursuit of material wealth, spiritual wealth, a sense of belonging, pride, respect and love for others and self often gets lost and can be hard to retrieve.
So I'm serving time in the kitchen, plating food, washing dishes, cleaning tables and following Mrs. E's orders as best I can. The sound of chatter and laughter, the roll of the bingo ball, and Mrs. E's voice coming from the other room makes for time well spent.
James Keith Phillips is the winner of the 2012 Dan's Papers Literary Prize for Nonfiction. Click here to read his winning story, "Magic Shirts."


text:
Construction Consumer Products Metals & Materials Safety Environment Transportation Chemicals Energy Medical Quality
Partnering to Meet Standards Goals
When responding to standards needs, ASTM International welcomes the opportunity to partner with other industry, trade or research groups.
The involvement of other organizations can enrich standards work as well as related training, certifications, manuals and more, and new ASTM activities are under way through this approach.
Before a partnership begins, as with all possible standards activities, due diligence is required.
When considering partnering with an organization in your field, which may have a group of documents or expertise that would add value to your committee's standards, first answer some questions. If there's a standards need, what is it? Why should an activity be started? Are there industry interests, government agencies, consumer groups and others willing to develop standards in this area? Is there another group already involved in the area? Are there other service programs (certification, training for example) that may assist the industry?
Responding to questions like this will help you to think about how a new effort could help with concerns about market, performance, quality, safety or efficiency issues.
As you explore the potential for a new activity and partnering, contact Brian Meincke, ASTM assistant vice president, business development (phone: 610-832-9613). He will ask you to detail information along the lines of the above in keeping with ASTM's established process.
This issue highlights partnerships; for more, see the features on pages 38 and 44.
One example is seen in a heat metering activity now housed under Committee E44 on Solar, Geothermal and Other Alternative Energy Sources. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recognized a need and ultimately brought it to the attention of the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials and ASTM because of relevant expertise in and interest by both groups. IAPMO and ASTM agreed to cooperate in this effort and signed a memorandum of understanding for the work.
Another example is recently organized Committee E62 on Industrial Biotechnology. Industry stakeholders of the Society for the Commercial Development of Industrial Biotechnology, an affiliate of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates, presented their due diligence to ASTM International, and a new committee has grown out of the collaboration.
Perhaps an organization prefers not to develop or continue to maintain standards under its jurisdiction. Through an arrangement between the U.S. National Institute of Justice and ASTM, ASTM Committee E54 on Homeland Security Applications has become responsible for active equipment standards and will develop others.
Even if the time is not yet right for standards development, a partnership with ASTM can help lay groundwork by opening communications and exploring possibilities. An MOU with America Makes, formerly the National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute, will facilitate standards development under Committee F42 on Additive Manufacturing Technologies. And, an agreement between the Critical Materials Institute and ASTM Committee F40 on Declarable Substances in Materials is based on a similar approach. One group focuses on the research, and when standards are needed, they will be developed using the ASTM consensus process.
In all these scenarios, ASTM International can respond to current and future needs.
"ASTM is a service and solutions provider," says Meincke. "We're a flexible organization prepared to collaborate in new ways to solve whatever problems exist."


text: 1. An inaugural dissertation, shewing in what manner pestilential vapours acquire their acid quality, and how this is neutralized and destroyed by alkalies: submitted to the public examination of the faculty of physic, under the authority of the trustees of Columbia College, in the state of New-York, William Samuel Johnson, LL.D. president ; for the degree of Doctor of Physic, on the 2d day of May, 1798 Author(s): Lent, Adolph C. Publication: New-York : Printed by T. & J. Swords, printers to the faculty of physic of Columbia College, no. 99 Pearl-Street, 1798 Subject(s): AlkaliesDisease Outbreaks


text:
Arctic Monkeys | 27/01/14
Arctic Monkeys release their new single 'Arabella' on March 10th 2014. Listen to the track HERE.
Arctic Monkeys will also be performing a special outdoor show at Marlay Park, Dublin, Ireland on Saturday 12th July 2014. Joining them will be very special guests Jake Bugg, Miles Kane and Royal Blood.
Tickets will go on general sale on Friday 31st January at 9am. Tickets will be available via Ticketmaster outlets nationwide. 24 hours: 0818 719 300 / www.ticketmaster.ie Gates will open at 3pm. Under 16s must be accompanied by a parent or guardian of 25 years of age or over.
'Arabella' is taken from Arctic Monkeys' fifth No.1 album, the Mercury Music Prize and BRIT-nominated AM which was released last September. The band start their sold out US tour this week and will be playing at New York's Madison Square Gardens on 8th February. Arctic Monkeys will be back to the UK in May to perform their biggest ever shows in the capital - two dates at London's Finsbury Park on Friday the 23rd and Saturday the 24th of May. The band will also be opening The Brits 2014 at 8pm on Wednesday the 19th of February.
Arctic Monkeys will be performing on Late Show with David Letterman tonight at 11.35pm EST. The performance will be streamed after the broadcast on the band's site HERE.
UK and Irish live dates are as follows:
Friday 23rd May: UK: London, Finsbury Park – SOLD OUT *
Saturday 24th May: UK: London, Finsbury Park – SOLD OUT *
Saturday 12th July 2014: Ireland: Dublin, Marlay Park ±
*with support from Tame Impala, Miles Kane and Royal Blood
± with support from Jake Bugg, Miles Kane and Royal Blood.
'Arabella' is available digitally now HERE.


text:
San Francisco transit riders won some and lost some today [Tue/15] at the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency's Board of Directors meeting. The board voted to repeal Sunday parking meters, effective July 1. It also asked SFMTA Director Ed Reiskin to add 18-year-olds into the Free Muni for Youth program, which will take effect Nov. 1.
But a proposal for free Muni for seniors and the disabled hit a snag, and the board decided it would evaluate their budget in January 2015 to identify available funding for the program. Until then, the program is in limbo.
"I think free Muni for seniors and people with disabilities is a great need, it's a moral imperative," said Tom Nolan, chairman of the SFMTA board. "It's not a question if these things will happen, it's when."
Nearly 100 of advocates for the Free Muni For Youth and Free Muni for Seniors and the Disabled programs packed into the small board chamber at City Hall Tuesday. Some came in wheelchairs, others walked in carefully with canes, and small children bounded into the chamber playfully. At least 100 more people waited outside the doors of the chamber in line to speak. All came with a purpose: to tell the SFMTA that free Muni would help them live in a city increasingly inhospitable to poor and middle class San Franciscans.
"To some people $23 may not be much, but to (seniors), every penny counts," Pei Juan Zheng, vice president of the Community Tenants Association told the board at public comment. She spoke in Cantonese, and was later translated by a woman at her side. "I know some senior couples who can only afford one Muni pass and share it, taking turns to go on doctor's visits."
Many public commenters reminded the board that free Muni for the disabled and seniors could be paid for by paid Sunday parking meters, which the SFMTA ultimately decided to repeal. The SFMTA's budget proposal estimates free Muni for seniors and the disabled to cost about $4 million annually. Conversely, repealing paid parking meters is estimated to cost Muni $9.8 million annually. SFMTA spokesperson Paul Rose said the loss could actually be as high as $11 million.
The reason for repealing the paid parking meters was made clear as day: Mayor Ed Lee and the SFMTA board are tip-toeing around car-driving voters, afraid several ballot measures to fund Muni this November will tank. To that end, they're willing to appease drivers however they can.
"It's clear we don't have support for (paid Sunday meters)," board member Joel Ramos said after the vote. "We have failed, frankly, to convince the great majority of people. Read [San Francisco Chronicle columnists] Matier & Ross and see the sentiment out there, it's a negative one."
For his part, Mayor Lee was pleased the board enacted his repeal proposal. His statement to the press released shortly after the vote laid clear his need to appease car-driving voters.
"Repealing Sunday parking meters is about making San Francisco a little more affordable for our families and residents on Sunday, plain and simple," he wrote in his statement. "Instead of nickel and diming our residents at the meter on Sunday, let's work together to support comprehensive transportation funding measures this year and in the future that will invest in our City's transportation system for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders and drivers alike."
Just two weeks ago, Reiskin suggested reducing enforcement of Sunday meters, perhaps in efforts to find a compromise. He has repeatedly publicly stated his support for paid Sunday meters. Apparently he was outnumbered.
There are silver linings. In January the SFMTA board will mull a 7 percent transit service increase for 2016, additional funding for cleaning Muni's fleet, and providing free Muni for low and moderate income seniors and disabled. The wait is due to the uncertainty of June contract negotiations with Muni workers, as well as the impending Muni funding ballot measures in November. If all goes well, the board said, funding may be identified for all of those projects. Until then, the loss of paid Sunday meters means Muni is out $9.8 million a year out of its $677 million budget.
The repeal of the paid markers doesn't just hit transit riders though. Local businesses may also lose out.
Back in our story "Muni Fare Shakedown [2/25]," Jim Lazarus, senior vice president of public policy at the business-friendly San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, told us he is a supporter of the paid Sunday meters. "You can drive into merchant areas now where you couldn't before," he told us.
Near the end of public comment, Cynthia Crews of the League of Pissed Off Voters put the board's vote into context.
"The MTA's purpose is to manage the effing streets, not do the mayor's bidding," she told the board. "This is a $9 million giveaway no one is asking for but Ed Lee."
"This," she said, "sucks."
Tweets from the SFMTA board of directors meeting
SFMTA mtg when 2-year budget could be passed is so full even media having trouble getting in http://t.co/8OZuZdPjXM pic.twitter.com/tNnRTsmNFS
— Jessica Kwong (@JessicaGKwong) April 15, 2014
Everyone's favorite @sfchronicle curmudgeon @cwnevius is locked out of the SFMTA board meeting too. pic.twitter.com/PxyuqaQEDj
— Joe Fitz Rodriguez (@FitzTheReporter) April 15, 2014
Policy wonk/advocate spotting! At the @sfmta_muni board meeting: Tom Radulovich, Tony Robles, Dan Weaver, and interest groups abound.
— Joe Fitz Rodriguez (@FitzTheReporter) April 15, 2014
At @sfmta_muni meeting, SFUSD disability education program "The Arc" rep: "We want to make sure you know we exist" asks for free #muni
— Joe Fitz Rodriguez (@FitzTheReporter) April 15, 2014
Mario Tanev of the @SFTRU to the @sfmta_muni board on Sunday meters: "your own study shows meters are beneficial to businesses and shoppers"
— Joe Fitz Rodriguez (@FitzTheReporter) April 15, 2014
Poet and activist Tony Robles is up, speaking to @sfmta_muni: "Many seniors are outright targeted for eviction…"
— Joe Fitz Rodriguez (@FitzTheReporter) April 15, 2014
Tony Robles to @sfmta_muni "bottom line is, living in San Francisco is not cheap for seniors. Seniors, quite frankly, need a break." #Muni
— Joe Fitz Rodriguez (@FitzTheReporter) April 15, 2014
These advocates from POWER said they were "surprised we had to be here again" to advocate for free #muni for youth. pic.twitter.com/EnuzNCR6Ip
— Joe Fitz Rodriguez (@FitzTheReporter) April 15, 2014
Supervisor @ericmar415 to SFMTA board: "baby boomers like you will be seniors soon. They struggle with isolation." pic.twitter.com/RZc7x3F7Eb
— Joe Fitz Rodriguez (@FitzTheReporter) April 15, 2014
The broadcast news folks are here. Are they confused or deeply concentrating? @KTVU w/ #Muni spokesperson Paul Rose. pic.twitter.com/dP0tIJ0kxJ
— Joe Fitz Rodriguez (@FitzTheReporter) April 15, 2014
Chinatown Community Development Center, Aaron Dong days "we don't spend enough on pedestrian safety, that's a fact." pic.twitter.com/b1JNQ0Xds7
— Joe Fitz Rodriguez (@FitzTheReporter) April 15, 2014
@FitzTheReporter The "best political minds" doing the political calculus that "no one likes meters" must not have double-checked their math.
— Michael Rhodes (@Perambulations) April 16, 2014


text:
Claiming every workplace in every nation as their mission field, LeTourneau University graduates are professionals of ingenuity and Christ-like character who see life's work as a holy calling with eternal impact
LeTourneau University is an interdenominational Christ-centered university offering more than 90 programs that prepare students for success in areas including aviation, biblical studies, business, criminal justice, education, engineering, health-science-nursing, human services, kinesiology, liberal arts, psychology and science.
Graduate degree offerings include business administration, counseling, education, engineering, psychology and strategic leadership.
In addition to its residential campus in Longview, the university offers undergraduate and graduate programs online and at educational centers in Bedford, Dallas, Austin, Houston and Tyler.
The university's 2,950 students represent nearly all 50 states, over 30 foreign countries, and 47 different denominational groups.
The entering freshman class averages of SAT scores range from approximately 150-200 points above the national average and evidence a strong academic quality, although provision is made for students with lower scores who possess evidence of potential achievement.
Participant ReviewsWrite a Review
This program hasn't been reviewed yet. Write the first review!