Ever notice that as you travel across the country, the radio at one part of the country sounds suspiciously like that in another? Well some years ago, Congress passed a law that allowed media ownership to become much more concentrated in the U.S. So today we are reaping the rewards of that decision, very few independent stations remain, and the music is homogenized, pasteurized, and computerized for replay out of transmitting towers across the country.
Will we ever get independent radio back? Will the news ever be interpreted by independent voices that provide a non-corporate take on the day's events?
Doubtful: that genie has been let out of the bottle for too long to ever get put back in.
But what can we do? When we find those independent voices on the radio dial, we need to support the hell out of 'em. My current favorite is a public radio station, KVMR, broadcasting out of Nevada City, California. You can listen to their stream here at KVMR's website. Which is probably the best way to listen to KVMR: the coverage of their signal is rather spotty, especially in the foothills.
All the DJ's are volunteers, and they play their own selections out of their personal libraries. The mix is rather eclectic, and frankly I can tire of Sunday morning's Kani Ka Pila very quickly (three straight hours of Hawaiian music).
So, give KVMR a listen (here is their program schedule) and if you like what you hear, and you feel like supporting this fine effort, you can donate your spare shekels here.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Iran and the coming explosion
Tonight I fear for the people of Iran.
The protesters and their political candidates have received Khamenei's ultimatum, and are fairly exuding a sense of doom.
Tonight I fear that the so far peaceful demonstrations will turn into a bloody revolution against the hard line conservatives and their supporters.
Tonight, I need a hug.
The protesters and their political candidates have received Khamenei's ultimatum, and are fairly exuding a sense of doom.
Tonight I fear that the so far peaceful demonstrations will turn into a bloody revolution against the hard line conservatives and their supporters.
Tonight, I need a hug.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Gitmo Detainees: What to Do?
As part of President Obama's problems with closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, there is always the issue of what to do with those detainees.
As an example, let's consider the fate of 17 Chinese Uighurs, ordered released in October 2008. There is fierce congressional opposition to settling them in the U.S. We've asked Canada to take them: nope. Australia has twice refused US requests to resettle these detainees, though there are rumors that they might take 10 of them. Lastly, we cannot return them to China for fear that they will tortured or executed (there is a fierce Islamist insurgent/separatist movement in Western China) and Beijing officials may want nothing more than to get their hands on these Uighurs, if only for political leverage against other insurgents in the Uighur areas.
Now we're considering resettling some or all of them on the remote island nation of Palau in the Pacific Ocean. Palau just happens to be one of the few nations that do not recognize China (the mainland) and maintains relations with Taiwan, so as a political entity, they have little to fear from the Chinese government's displeasure at not getting the Uighurs back.
Obviously, Palau would receive a lot of aid for doing this (a figure of $200m is being mentioned).
Let's go back to their detainment: these were not terrorists, not "unlawful enemy combatants." They were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. They have been held for years without any of the rights that the worst criminals in the United States are guaranteed. Is there a danger that these Uighurs, might turn into terrorists? Sure, see my post below ("We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto"). And who could blame them?
But settling them here in the United States is the right thing to do.
UPDATE, June 10, 2009: The government of Palau has agreed to "temporarily resettle" these 17 individuals "subject to periodic review."
As an example, let's consider the fate of 17 Chinese Uighurs, ordered released in October 2008. There is fierce congressional opposition to settling them in the U.S. We've asked Canada to take them: nope. Australia has twice refused US requests to resettle these detainees, though there are rumors that they might take 10 of them. Lastly, we cannot return them to China for fear that they will tortured or executed (there is a fierce Islamist insurgent/separatist movement in Western China) and Beijing officials may want nothing more than to get their hands on these Uighurs, if only for political leverage against other insurgents in the Uighur areas.
Now we're considering resettling some or all of them on the remote island nation of Palau in the Pacific Ocean. Palau just happens to be one of the few nations that do not recognize China (the mainland) and maintains relations with Taiwan, so as a political entity, they have little to fear from the Chinese government's displeasure at not getting the Uighurs back.
Obviously, Palau would receive a lot of aid for doing this (a figure of $200m is being mentioned).
Let's go back to their detainment: these were not terrorists, not "unlawful enemy combatants." They were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. They have been held for years without any of the rights that the worst criminals in the United States are guaranteed. Is there a danger that these Uighurs, might turn into terrorists? Sure, see my post below ("We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto"). And who could blame them?
But settling them here in the United States is the right thing to do.
UPDATE, June 10, 2009: The government of Palau has agreed to "temporarily resettle" these 17 individuals "subject to periodic review."
Sunday, June 7, 2009
The effectiveness of torture
The Republican right wing, from Dick and Liz Cheney, down through the chief apologists and liars at Faux News, have continued to raise the issue of the high quality of intelligence gathered through enhanced interrogation techniques to justify the use of torture in questioning detainees at Gitmo and CIA-operated "black" sites around the world.
Many on the left, have countered those arguments using statements from the many of the actual interrogators that the intelligence gained was incorrect, or are simply statements by those being questioned who thought it was what the interrogator wanted to hear. Both useless pieces of information, but irrelevant to the question of torture itself.
Torture is wrong. It is wrong if you get bad information out of the detainee; it is also wrong if you get perfect information out of him or her.
Why is it wrong? Because we (the US) do not want our soldiers subjected to torture in any shape or form, and we have prosecuted and would wish to continue to prosecute those who who perform these same so-called enhanced interrogation techniques on captured US soldiers. Once our personnel started doing this to the detainees we lost whatever high ground we occupied: we cannot say that it is okay for the US to torture, but not okay for anyone else.
If torture is wrong, ab initio, then whatever arguments the right wing would choose for its justification are not just worthless, we should cut off all further discussion.
That's it. 'Nuff said.
Many on the left, have countered those arguments using statements from the many of the actual interrogators that the intelligence gained was incorrect, or are simply statements by those being questioned who thought it was what the interrogator wanted to hear. Both useless pieces of information, but irrelevant to the question of torture itself.
Torture is wrong. It is wrong if you get bad information out of the detainee; it is also wrong if you get perfect information out of him or her.
Why is it wrong? Because we (the US) do not want our soldiers subjected to torture in any shape or form, and we have prosecuted and would wish to continue to prosecute those who who perform these same so-called enhanced interrogation techniques on captured US soldiers. Once our personnel started doing this to the detainees we lost whatever high ground we occupied: we cannot say that it is okay for the US to torture, but not okay for anyone else.
If torture is wrong, ab initio, then whatever arguments the right wing would choose for its justification are not just worthless, we should cut off all further discussion.
That's it. 'Nuff said.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Gay Marriage in California (or not)
I am puzzled by the California Supreme Court's decision last Tuesday, validating Proposition 8.
The irony is that the prior decision by Chief Justice George (granting gay couples the right to marriage) stated that the ability of all people to marriage is a fundamental right. As such, under the California Constitution, any change to that status must be made by an Amendment to the Constitution, with a specific set requirements--most definitively passage of the bill by super-majorities of both State legislative houses.
Prop. 8, which took away what Chief Justice Ronald George termed a fundamental right, by a bare majority of the voters, was never considered by either house. And I would bet that with Democratic majorities in both houses, it would never pass.
I'm remain, as I started, puzzled as to how the court got around this requirement.
The irony is that the prior decision by Chief Justice George (granting gay couples the right to marriage) stated that the ability of all people to marriage is a fundamental right. As such, under the California Constitution, any change to that status must be made by an Amendment to the Constitution, with a specific set requirements--most definitively passage of the bill by super-majorities of both State legislative houses.
Prop. 8, which took away what Chief Justice Ronald George termed a fundamental right, by a bare majority of the voters, was never considered by either house. And I would bet that with Democratic majorities in both houses, it would never pass.
I'm remain, as I started, puzzled as to how the court got around this requirement.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto
According to the NY Times, another detainee at Gitmo has committed suicide. This brings the number who have committed suicide to 5. I wonder if Sam Brownback is worried about detainees committing suicide in Kansas?
Part of the argument in detaining these "unlawful enemy combatants" is that once they're loose, they'll automatically turn into, ooooooh, T e r r o r i s t s.
Let's see now, you lock me up without reason--and many of those detained were simply just walking down the street--throw me behind bars, limit my access to a lawyer, subject me to torture--excuse me, "enhance interrogation techniques"--interrupt my sleep, and pee on my bible, I don't know about you, but I think I might become a terrorist.
Part of the argument in detaining these "unlawful enemy combatants" is that once they're loose, they'll automatically turn into, ooooooh, T e r r o r i s t s.
Let's see now, you lock me up without reason--and many of those detained were simply just walking down the street--throw me behind bars, limit my access to a lawyer, subject me to torture--excuse me, "enhance interrogation techniques"--interrupt my sleep, and pee on my bible, I don't know about you, but I think I might become a terrorist.
Why do we even bother?
Everybody knows about the law of diminishing returns: your first efforts to change anything usually result in substantial results; as you apply more and more effort to the problem, the results obtained per unit of effort get smaller and smaller.
Beginning in the 1960's, the United States began the legislation of stricter and harder to achieve standards for automobile emissions. We are at the point in California where we will soon limit carbon dioxide emissions.
All of this is good.
But come to find out, that according to The Guardian, fifteen of the largest container ships plying the seas emit more pollution that all the automobiles on the globe. One of the big reasons for this is that ships utilize high-sulfur bunker oil, and, for the most part of their journeys travel within 250 miles of land.
How about we stop importing junk from China via these container vessels? We can save the air and save domestic jobs at the same time.
Beginning in the 1960's, the United States began the legislation of stricter and harder to achieve standards for automobile emissions. We are at the point in California where we will soon limit carbon dioxide emissions.
All of this is good.
But come to find out, that according to The Guardian, fifteen of the largest container ships plying the seas emit more pollution that all the automobiles on the globe. One of the big reasons for this is that ships utilize high-sulfur bunker oil, and, for the most part of their journeys travel within 250 miles of land.
How about we stop importing junk from China via these container vessels? We can save the air and save domestic jobs at the same time.
Beginnings
How do these things (blogs) get started?
Some people, I imagine, just want to see their words in print.
Others might be "mad as hell and can't take it anymore."
For me, it is to simply mark an occasion.
For the past four years or so, my life has been like floating down a river, being buffeted once in awhile by the rocks in the way, but flowing gently onward: work, home, work, home--lazily absorbing what life has to offer, offering little in return but my attendance.
Prior to that, I was often described as the "smartest guy in the room" (apologies to the movie about ENRON), though I have to admit that the rooms were often not all that smart to begin with. Fortunately (or not), I never had to put in too much effort to succeed. And I didn't--in school, or at work--unless I was really taken by the subject matter: I could never get myself up for it, unless I was really interested in it.
Fortuitously, two of my hobbies (personal computers and motorcycles) led to fifteen years of fairly rewarding employment. But as all things must pass, I looked at what I had available for eventual retirement--not much--and decided to become a bureaucrat for the State of California. And although retirement was now addressed, the job turned me into a zombie bureaucrat.
Until this past weekend.
I happened across a blog (NSFW, though: http://www.chicaandhervan.blogspot.com/) where blogger Chica's words smacked me right up alongside my head. Simple, direct, full of love and empathy. Years ago, we'd have called her a hippy, and I don't think that sobriquet would bother her at all--in fact from her writings, I believe that's how she really sees herself.
It happens that she and I have a lot of the same likes and dislikes, a lot of the same viewpoints, so why cannot I apply Chica's same energy and joie de vivre to my own life?
Thank you, Chica! Hopefully I can fulfill my reawakened desires and become a mensch once again.
You can help Chica by purchasing some of her extremely beautiful photographs at RedBubble: http://www.redbubble.com/people/chicachica? (also NSFW).
Some people, I imagine, just want to see their words in print.
Others might be "mad as hell and can't take it anymore."
For me, it is to simply mark an occasion.
For the past four years or so, my life has been like floating down a river, being buffeted once in awhile by the rocks in the way, but flowing gently onward: work, home, work, home--lazily absorbing what life has to offer, offering little in return but my attendance.
Prior to that, I was often described as the "smartest guy in the room" (apologies to the movie about ENRON), though I have to admit that the rooms were often not all that smart to begin with. Fortunately (or not), I never had to put in too much effort to succeed. And I didn't--in school, or at work--unless I was really taken by the subject matter: I could never get myself up for it, unless I was really interested in it.
Fortuitously, two of my hobbies (personal computers and motorcycles) led to fifteen years of fairly rewarding employment. But as all things must pass, I looked at what I had available for eventual retirement--not much--and decided to become a bureaucrat for the State of California. And although retirement was now addressed, the job turned me into a zombie bureaucrat.
Until this past weekend.
I happened across a blog (NSFW, though: http://www.chicaandhervan.blogspot.com/) where blogger Chica's words smacked me right up alongside my head. Simple, direct, full of love and empathy. Years ago, we'd have called her a hippy, and I don't think that sobriquet would bother her at all--in fact from her writings, I believe that's how she really sees herself.
It happens that she and I have a lot of the same likes and dislikes, a lot of the same viewpoints, so why cannot I apply Chica's same energy and joie de vivre to my own life?
Thank you, Chica! Hopefully I can fulfill my reawakened desires and become a mensch once again.
You can help Chica by purchasing some of her extremely beautiful photographs at RedBubble: http://www.redbubble.com/people/chicachica? (also NSFW).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
