Flushing his money away?
Some man is leaving money in toilets in Japan's government buildings.
Says the Reuters article:
Each comes with a handwritten letter in formal wording evoking Buddhist language, saying the giver hopes the money will be "useful for your pursuit of knowledge."
So far, the benefactor has given about 4 million yen ($32,720) away in this manner.
Now, why can't this happen in the United States? Tuition is increasing at a rate of 6% annually, more than double the rate (3%) of inflation. Japan still has cheaper comparable tuition rates as well. This person needs to leave the money in library reference books. :)
See the story
here.
Unabomber Writings Create Controversy
As a writer,
this headline caught my eye. Theodore Kaczynski, the famed Unabomber, is now fighting for the rights to his writings and personal correspondance he received from his brother and mother. The government doesn't want to return the documents, but Kaczynski is claiming first ammendment rights. The question still remains: Should the government allow a murderer to retain the rights and access to his writings?
Now, I would first like to point out the irony of his demands to the corresponance, which was sent through the federal mail system, the same system that he used to 16 mail bombs, resulting in the deaths of three people and the injury of 28 others.
The government wants to censor the documents and auction them, and donate the resulting funds to four of Kaczynski's victims. However, it is unclear how the government acquired permanent rights to these documents. First amendment rights would appear to dictate that Kaczynski still owns his "intellectual property," including an impressive 35,000-word manifesto.
The manifesto itself is consistent with the level of brilliance expected of a student educated at both Harvard and the University of Michigan. It is coherent, well-punctuated, and organized. It's intensity is nearly overwhelming.
One of the victims argued that because Kaczynski disregarded the rights of his victims, he himself should be denied rights to his documents. Yet, these are two separate types of rights. Why not deny Kaczynski his right to life, seeing how he forfeited his by three cases of murder? Kaczynski did not deny his victims their rights to free speech, although it might be argued that he dent them their rights to free speech by removing their right to life.
Taken to a higher degree, revoking any citizen's rights to their own intellectual property puts all Americans at risk for greater government censorship and loss of personal property rights. Where do we draw the line? At murderers? At people who criticize the government? At anyone who disagrees with the mindset of the dominant social class?
Kaczynski is still a citizen.
Labels: Kaczynski, manifesto, rights, Unabomber, victims, writing
Here's to the memory of Gerald Ford. Although not a perfect president, he served his country well. Thank you, sir, and may you go peacefully through the darkness and into the light.
Here's to the execution of a cruel leader who murdered many and tortured far more. Saddam, may your soul receive the justice it deserves.
Here's to James Brown, the singer who helped many of us say and believe "I feel good." You have died, but your music lives on. Thank you, and good night.
Here's to Naomi Cornell, who was a loving, giving grandmother whose life story leads me onward. You are loved, forever and always in my heart.
Here's to 2007. To forgiveness and mercy, to a friend (and the respective parent) who let me sleep over for two nights no questions asked, to Boston's homeless and those who minister to them, to unexpected hugs from wonderful people, to making dean's list, to dinner out with girlfriends, to being called at 1am and wished happy new year, to finding hope in new places, to a teacher who went beyond and became a friend and a mentor, to falling and getting back up, to doing illegal activities and not getting caught, to being content and happy, to loving old friends and making new ones, and so the list goes.
Stay tuned for my official new year's resolutions list.
<3 in hope and good faith
Thanksgiving Weekend Ends in Tragedy
Wednesday night while most people were traveling to and from Thanksgiving destinations, a major three-day party was keeping up the neighborhood near Milton Avenue in Dorchester. According to The Boston Globe, "hundreds of people," mostly teenagers, attended the bash, which blasted reggae music into the night. At 3:20 on Sunday morning, Boston Police responded to a report of a fight and found five people shot, one fatally wounded. Two of the victims were female, aged 14 and 15. The other three were male, aged 16, 17, and 18. The 18-year-old, Jonathan Jacques of Dorchester, was pronounced dead at Boston Medical Center, where he was taken for treatment.
Crimes of this sort are not unusual for Dorchester, which ranks high above the state and national average in crime risk.
Move, Inc. reports that the area in which the party was held, zip code 02124, has 3.23 times the national average for personal crime risk, which includes "rape, murder, assault and robbery."
The Boston Globe notes Jacques is the "68th homicide victim in the city [Boston] this year." Demographically, the area is nearly 85 per cent white collar, but with a median household income ($38,473) well below the state average ($54,375).
My opinion: Dorchester is in an unfortunate situation of having a high crime rate. Similiar areas like Mattapan, Chinatown, and Roxbury fall into the category of "places not to be alone in after dark." While I understand that the shootings are a very sad matter, I want to point out that a 3-day party of teenagers with beer, juice, and Red Bull energy drinks is a dangerous mix in itself. Where are the parents? And why did the neighbors allow the party to get this wild?
Read the full
Globe story for the other interesting elements to the story, including the missing owner of the hosting house, the condition of the hosting house, and what sparked the whole tragedy.
Al Gore is not Dead: Earth Emerson Screens Global Warming Film
Al Gore is not dead. He is alive and kicking and promoting environmental responsibility to fend off global warming. Thursday night at the Loewe’s Theatre on Tremont Street, Earth Emerson screened Gore’s documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, before a packed house of 150 people, both faculty and students.
The event was free and pizza and were drinks were provided prior to the show. Keeping with the idea of saving the earth, the plates and napkins were made from corn. Earth Emerson also informed the audience that the drink cups which appeared to be plastic would actually disintegrate within sixty days. Unlike most free food, the pizza was delicious, hot, and available in two styles—plain cheese or vegetarian. Drinks were soda, which did ignore the health conscious but offered diet choices for people watching their weight.
The show began at 6:30pm after the president, Lauren Robbins, the treasurer, Heather Vitale, and the secretary Hillary Richard made brief opening announcements. They shamelessly asked for donations to support their cause and gave a nod of gratitude to their advisor, Jonathan “Satch” Satriale.
Preceding the film was a short video clip of the three Earth Emerson officers explaining why they joined Earth Emerson and the impact that Al Gore’s film had on their lives. There was a small technical issue with the film audio at first, but the evening continued smoothly once the glitch was fixed.
An Inconvenient Truth ran like what a film would look like if a PowerPoint presentation, a documentary, and a autobiographical pity-me post-election-loss script came together and fused, producing a mutant creation. The first scene opened with Al Gore on a stage, giving a presentation to a large group of people.
“I'm Al Gore, I used to be the next president of the United States,” he began, and received applause and laughter in return. However, the rest of the film remained serious, somber even, as Gore demonstrated statistics on projection screens, cut to video footage of disasters, and prophesied doom for the future.
The film’s “truth” was overshadowed by the “See, I told you so” attitude and “Repent! Recycle! Reuse!” mentality. Ironically, many of the scenes cut to Al Gore boarding an airplane or riding in a car. Although he is shown riding on a commercial flight, in the car he is by himself. The vehicle does not appear to be a hybrid vehicle nor does it appear that he ever employs the use of energy-saving public transportation.
The end of the film provided tips for combating global warming set to the inspirational words of “I Need to Wake Up” by Melissa Etheridge. By that point, the audience couldn’t agree more—waking up was on the immediate agenda. As the house lights came on, the seats emptied nearly as fast as they had filled. Near the side of the room, Satch held a garbage bag for those leaving to dispose their garbage. Most students were out in the cool Boston air, ready to get out and light up.
Rush and Snow Talk Nonsense
Yesterday on his talk show, Rush Limbaugh asserted: "the Democrats have lost all white voters." This may come as a surprise to those white Democrats out there who apparently don't exist anymore in Rush's perspective of the world. Is it any wonder that he was discussing this with Tony Snow, press secretary for President Bush, in Pensacola?
RUSH: I have been suspicious of polls for a long time in the sense that I believe
news organizations use them to make news that reflects their editorial
pages, and the same with the editorial opinion of broadcast network
people, and like the Pew poll internals show massive shifts in 30 days of
public opinion. One of the things in the Pew poll is that the Democrats have
lost all white voters. They've lost women and they've lost --
SNOW: They've lost men. They've lost women. Absolutely right, and I'm glad you
pointed that out.
Snow must have missed or just completely ignored the
Woman's National Democratic Club or the
Democratic Women for Change.
With no one but his carefully-screened listeners to oppose his claims, Rush also informed Snow: "Everybody is so proud to have you where you are." Speak for yourself, Rush. Some of us, including myself, aren't particularly happy to have someone like Snow telling the American people what is going on from a completely partisan point of view. I don't think Snow which is up after the nonpartisan group Thinkprogress.org provided a
list of excerpts credited to Snow that calls Bush "impotent" and an "embarrassment."
However, Snow commented later in
the interview:
I think people are starting to connect the dots because they see, even though
it's been tough work and it's required a lot of patience, that, hey, wait a
minute, what the president's talking about, A, makes common sense, and B, is
working.
So our impotent embarrassment of a President has common sense and his plan is working? Please, Mr. Snow, have you been following the war? Have you been hearing the death tolls? And for what have our brave soldiers fought? The overthrow of Saddam? London-based publication
Ekklesia reports:
Astonishing new on-the-ground research published in todayÂs edition of The
Lancet by a US university team suggests that an estimated 655,000 Iraqis may
have died since the 2003 US-led invasion  people who would otherwise be alive today.
According to an Associated Press piece in the Houston Chronicle: "As of Monday, Nov. 6, 2006, at least 2,836 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003." Tell, Mr. Snow, was the imprisonment of Saddam worth those 2,836 deaths? Does this sound like a plan that is working? Iraq is an inch away from civil war. How is that an improvement? Mr. Snow, please reevaluate the war in Iraq before you make these self-supportive claims. And you, Mr. President, maybe if you had actually served in a war, you wouldn't be so quick to start another one to ship out
other people's children (obviously, not your own, which are too busy making fools of themselves.)
For the full transcript of the Rush/Snow interview,
click here.
Warfare in the Womb
"Of all the risks that we must face in our lives, the most dangerous place we can be is in the womb,” claims the Christian apologetics organization GodandScience.org. Even in comparison with the
Middle East and war-torn countries, the female body remains the most dangerous battleground over which American legislation has ever fought. Traditionally in many cultures, a woman found her identity in bearing children. Other cultures, however, have defined women through a wide spectrum of distinctions. Aside from abstinence, the best solution to preventing unwanted pregnancies, and ultimately abortions, is the implementation of birth control, including the morning-after pill.
Currently, about twenty birth control methods exist, each with varying degrees of effectiveness, but the majority of them only work before intercourse. The morning-after pill, also known as Plan B, differs from the other types in its time of effectiveness, after intercourse, providing a second hope.
A major issue of contention regarding the morning-after pill is the time of dispensation and administration. Some positional groups and individuals cannot determine when life begins so they cannot make a solid argument against conception-preventing drugs. Among these is Abort73, a division of Loxafamosity, which clearly states on one page “human life begins at fertilization,” while that very portion of text links to another page declaring, “human life begins at conception.” Harris International conducted a poll that found the beginning of life to be the biggest dividing line between pro-choice and pro-life advocates.
Independent positional groups are not the only ones attempting to pinpoint the beginning of life. Politics has dipped its own proverbial foot into the dangerous debate waters. In January of this year, Virginia delegate Mark Cole proposed a bill that would define fertilization as the beginning of life. An anonymous poster on the Virginia Family Values PAC made a valid point when arguing, “Cole might as well claim that life begins in a twinkle in the would-be Daddy’s eye.”
Regardless of the facts, too many emotions continue to influence the definitions and bend them to fit certain arguments. To avoid these complications, a more objective source provides relatively neutral definitions for the confusing, abortion issue terms. Cancer Web, a project of the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, characterizes fertilization as a “process in sexual reproduction, involving the union of two specialized haploid cells, the male and female gametes to give a diploid cell, the zygote.” The egg and sperm are not magic beans that produce life when amalgamated.
Furthermore, just as the union of two bodies in sexual intercourse does not create a marriage, the union of two otherwise neutral cells does not form a life. Only when the newly formed diploid cell implants itself into the wall of the uterus does it become a viable human being. The medical community—as delineated by the ethically neutral Cancer Web Project (CWP)—refers to this implantation as conception, or “the onset of pregnancy.”
In contrast, the issue with the morning-after pill is the well-intentioned, though incorrect, notion that the pill aborts a conceived zygote. This has led to the refusal of some pharmacists to distribute the pill due to ethical and religious reasons. Peggy Pace, a Walgreen’s pharmacist who has turned away at least two prescriptions for the morning-after pill, receives protection from the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act regarding her decisions. She asserts, “it will end the life of an embryo” (Villa). By the CWP definition, a zygote does not become an embryo until “about two weeks after fertilization.” That point in time is far beyond the potential reaches of the morning-after pill’s “window of opportunity,” thus making her argument void. Currently, disagreement exists among researches on how the morning-after pill works—whether the process deters the release of the egg or prevents the implantation of the zygote into the uterine wall. The significance of the distinction is the viability of the fertilized egg as a human life before conception.
Unfortunately, clarified definitions do not solve this argument on their own. Public ignorance and manipulation of emotions leave the general populace with misnomers regarding the actual pill. A common result is the confusion of the morning-after pill, which prevents pregnancy, with abortifaceints that do end a life. The list of abortion-inducing pills includes Mifepristone (RU-486), Methotrexate, and misoprostol. These pills “are never dispensed from pharmacies” and “they’re given only under the supervision of a clinic or physician,” according to Joan Villa of the Illinois Times. Ethically sensitive pharmacists such as Peggy Pace need not worry about the possibility of administering abortion-causing pills. The morning-after pill is just as ethically acceptable as the condoms sold in front of the pharmacy counter.
The arguments will remain for both sides, and the majority of people will take staunch positions without regarding the evidence or seeking the truth. Hope, nevertheless, remains for both men and women affected by the risk of a pregnancy for which neither one is ready. At the time of its effectiveness, the pill prevents a pregnancy and renders little risk to the woman. The rate of its success is not faultless, but still considerably good. Considering the alternative, a decent chance is better than no chance at all. Thus, the morning-after pill serves as an ethically acceptable form of birth control.♦
Open Mouth, Insert Foot
Dear John Kerry,
You poor fool. Hasn't anyone told you that you can't tell a joke to save your life (or your dignity)? I commend you, though, for rising above the childishness of the GOP and apologizing to anyone who might have been offended by your botched joke. However, I hope you learned to keep your mouth shut!
Even though I don't like your positions on most issues and you ran the worst campaign known to history, I still respect you for not being stubborn and possibly creating more damage to your image. I'm still disappointed, though, that you employed such awful advisors for your 2004 campaign. Now we are stuck with a president who repeats the same empty words and spurns the American people to rally behind a war that he wrongly says we are winning. If only you had used some common sense and ran a stronger campaign, maybe we might not be in this sad situation.
Sincerely,
Lynette
P.S. Here's a
video clip of your blunder for you to study and learn from.
Welcome to the Memory Hole
The title of this blog is derived from terms and concepts from George Orwell's book
1984, which tells the story of a man who dares to resist Big Brother and think independently. One key element of the story is the memory hole, where news is sent to be destroyed after the government demands that history be rewritten so that history is a continually changing record that always supports the claims and actions of Big Brother.
Here is where you will find newsworthy articles and analysis on recent events as well as retrospective breakdowns of history and how it perpetually shapes our present. You are welcome to opine as long as your comments are well-supported and you remain open-minded. Another blog worth looking into is by my friend James, who is a self-proclaimed news junkie and a politically-informed student.
Now that this first post is over, bookmark this site and return often.
Lynette
