.:[Double Click To][Close]:.
Get paid To Promote 
at any Location





Sunday, October 31, 2010

Once upon a khabarnama...

when mushie chacha turned off the channels in november 2007, many journalists took to the streets. in karachi, one particular protest was shut down by the police, and the participants arrested. later, they would quote the experience when they spoke of being 'hardened journalists' who bore the brunt of 'a repressive military regime as they fought for the freedom of speech while rocking out to rage against the machine.' 


what most of them failed to mention was how their stay in jail for a few hours involved being brought over pizzas and cans of soft drinks as well as untold cartons of cigarettes.


the point being, that sometimes things aren't what they seem. 


so when dawn.com had issues with my second consecutive blog because of things i was saying about their other employees, i decided to put it on my blog, which is only beholden to me. this doesn't stand as an example of censorship or any such malarkey, for several reasons. the most important one being that in both cases, the references to dawn employees was not an indictment of them personally, nor was it a personal vendetta against two popular and well respected men. instead, it was an attempt to contextualise their words and actions.


so, without further ado, here it is.



Before disney took over the job, fairy tales were the realm of the spoken word.

instead of animation, grandmothers, or audio cassettes, usually took upon the role of reading out elaborate tales of fantasy, adventure, bravery and magic. each tale was embellished with fascinating characters with pretty one-dimensional personalities. 

the brave prince, the wronged princess, the devious churail, the friendly giant, the mischievous gnomes, vengeful pirates, bashful fairies, scheming sorcerers, generous djinns, 40 crafty thieves - you get the picture.
for the story teller, the liberating aspect of this exercise was the ability to create a whole world, populate it with characters, and trust that the listener would take that on face value.

there wasn't any necessity to provide context. the evil king was evil because that's what the story said - no one asked to hear about his human rights record, or his control over his kingdom's sovereignty. 

a few days ago, one of pakistan's most respected journalists wrote a rather curious article, in which he spent a long time dissecting the life and times of Angelina Jolie.
the inquest resulted in a lot of wink-wink, nudge-nudge innuendo, and some outright tamachay on the wisdom and choices of Ms. Jolie. 

now several blogs took apart this approach on the interwebs, and i'll leave you to judge for yourself. but personally, the basic question that arises upon reading this column is why unleash this maelstrom of mense on the actress, who after all was working recently for flood relief victims in pakistan?

a quick glance at the article reveals the answer.

the article's conclusion was related to ms. jolie's complaints about the excesses of the Pakistani government. according to the scribe, this was how low the government's stock had reached - that even a person with morals as allegedly dubious as Angelina bhabi looked down upon the rulers in islamabad.

now, if we step back, and ignore the spicy gossip strewn all over this column, a more primeval reaction arises - 'huh?'

what is the point of all this?

well, pyare bacho, the point is that in order to provide context to a story, to an event, to any scrap of news, one has to create a narrative.

a narrative requires certain characters, certain events and their consequences in order to provide a conclusion. 
narratives help provide allegories, examples and advice on how to make sense of the world. to provide a beginning, middle and end. and the simpler the narrative, the flatter the characters, the more emphatic its message becomes.

in pakistan, where we are saturated by news and nothing but news all the time, it appears that we have put our grandmothers to sleep and turned on the television for our fairy tales.

and so each day, we stare agog at our screens, as wise men narrate epic tales of evil plotters, court room intrigue, daring heros, corrupt rulers, oppressed masses, wanton destruction, foreign hands and local bodies. 
unfortunately, while our grandmothers would end the fairy tales when we started to fall asleep, the modern story tellers just don't let up. and so if our attention begins to waver, they conjure up even more exoticised characters, whose benign actions become symbols of societal malaise. they start weaving together completely unrelated fantasies and present them as a cohesive whole.

like the amorous, brazen queen of the heathen tribes of the west, who visited this fair kingdom, and even she, this insatiable devourer of men, was left ashamed by the excesses of the evil king and his supporters.

i wonder who disney would get to play the role of the grand vizier?

Friday, October 29, 2010

Brown Paper Packages

"Brown paper packages, tied up with string, these are a few of my favourite things!" Maybe it was seeing the recent reunion of the Sound of Music cast on Oprah, but walking through Ikea recently I just HAD to buy some of this kraft paper (a bargain at $1.49 for 8m/26ft!). Immediately, I had visions of creating a vintage Christmas... HandyMan's childhood ornaments decorating the tree, handmade gifts, and presents wrapped in kraft paper and twine.

These images are inspiring me...
Color Me Pretty (via decor8)


Maybe I'll try out the faux bois tool I found this summer and try making Martha's wood grain paper too!

Have you started thinking about the holidays yet?

Boughton's favorite xenophobe's approval for violence against immigrant community sparks outrage

Boughton_Marciano_Love

I don't think Boughton is going to be happy with this...and you would think that Marciano would have learned a thing or two since her anti-Islam statement about the President sparked a great deal of outrage.

On Tuesday night, anti-immigrant leader Elise Marciano made an appearance on local access TV with the well known racist pervert Tom Big(o)T Bennett and both, who are rabid supporters of Boughton, basically made an ass out of themselves.

Since Boughton embraced and acknowledge his solidarity with the leader of the anti-immigrant misfits the Democratic State Central Committee as well as yours truly and national groups have been hard at work exposing the bigotry from Marciano that we in Danbury already know all too well.

Readers of HatCityBLOG were was instrumental in exposing Bennett's outrageous and violent on-air remarks and violations of the policy of Comcast cable that ultimately resulted in the village idiot having his ridiculous show moved to a later time slot.

Well, the two morons' outrageous comments resulted in State Central releasing the following statement to the national media and public.

Connecticut State Central Press Release:
In September, Danbury Mayor and Republican Lieutenant Governor Candidate Mark Boughton was caught campaigning for himself and Tom Foley at a United State Citizens for Immigration Law Enforcement (USCFile) rally, at which his was warmly welcomed by USCFile leader, Elise Marciano. Marciano, the woman who publicly declared her belief that President Obama was a Muslim, had this to say on the topic: “He’s (Obama) not going to a Christian church. As President of the United States, he’s not going to a Christian church, even though he claims that the Reverend Wright’s church was Christian. How do you figure that? I’ll tell you why – because he was brought up as a Muslim, and he is a Muslim and they cannot go back on their religion.”

On Tuesday night, Boughton’s favorite anti-immigrant extremist and supporter Elise Marciano was at it again, this time claiming that President Obama has told “the whole damn world” to come into the country to “take over these damned Americans who are reading and writing and finding out what we are doing in Congress.” In particular, Marciano said she believes President Obama especially wants the “ones that are uneducated to come in and take over by sheer magnitude of numbers.”

But it gets worse.

Following Marciano’s tirade, her good friend, fellow anti-immigrant extremist Tom Bennett, put forward his own idea to form a “vigilante” group to “get busses and take these illegals…out on the ocean and put them in a boat with holes in it.” During the entirety of Bennett’s radical and scary rant, Marciano smiled and stayed silent, refusing to oppose Bennett’s call for vigilantism.

Earlier this month, Foley came under fire for appointing Reverend Barbara Sexton as his “Independents for Tom” chairwoman. Sexton wrote racist and hate-filled statements all over her blog, including her belief that “all blacks voted for Barack, period,” while arguing that Obama is a Muslim “masquerading as a Christian,” who is “not interested in protecting the interests of those of us who come from the Judeo-Christian tradition.” When confronted about Sexton’s involvement in the campaign, the best Foley’s campaign could do was lie, and cover up their first lie with another.

“This isn’t an isolated incident,” said Connecticut Democratic Party Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo. “This is part of a larger pattern where Tom Foley’s campaign has courted supporters who have known extremist views, regarding race, religion or country of origin. It’s disturbing, to say the least, that people like Barbara Sexton, Elise Marciano and Tom Bennett may have a seat at the table in a Foley/Boughton administration. Mr. Bennett’s call for vigilantism against immigrants must immediately be disavowed by both Tom Foley and Mark Boughton. In addition, they really need to take a closer look at the people they have installed in key leadership roles in their campaign, and the events at which they ask for support from people.”

TRANSCRIPT:

ELISE MARCIANO: “He’s (President Obama) just telling the whole damn world, come into America, we’re going to let you do whatever you want. We just want you to take over these damned Americans who are reading and writing and finding out what we are doing here in Congress, and they don’t like it, so we gotta overwhelm them. That’s what they’re doing. That’s exactly what they’re doing. They want all these people, especially the ones that are uneducated, to come in here and take it over by sheer magnitude of numbers. They won’t know what they’re voting for, they won’t know what to do. It’ll be, you know, just anything they want.”

TOM BENNETT: “It’s time to do vigilantism, that’s what it’s time to do. We have to be organized and become vigilantes for our own protection. We have to protect our country, our citizens, because the police aren’t doing it. We have to protect our own borders. So I say, that we have to get together and have a very, very large vigilante group. Oh yeah. We need that. And then we can have club dues, have fundraisers and then we can get busses and take these illegals and we can get rid of them ourselves. We can take them out on the ocean and put them in a boat with holes in it. And that’s it, okay?”

As readers of this site know, this isn't the first time Bennett has called for a vigilante/violent approach to the issue of illegal immigration in Danbury...and in future posts, you'll see how Marciano and her ilk are not immune when it comes to implying a violent approach to addressing the issue of immigration in the city.

...more on the Boughton ties to Marciano later.

NOTE: If anyone recorded Tuesday's show, contact me at hatctyblog@yahoo.com.




RELATED POSTS:

State Dems call out Boughton for embracing/attending Marciano anti-immigration group rally

Exposing lies from Marciano regarding death threat made against yours truly is TOO easy

Bennett and co-founder of Marciano's anti-immigration group call for acts of violence against immigrant community

Bennett uses sexual explicit language with a 15 year old girl on-air

Bennett and co-founder of Marciano anti-immigration group arrested and charged with first degree sexual assault

From Intelligence Squared, U.S. Debate series: Big government is stifling the American spirit

A video of the entire debate featuring Arthur Laffer (of the Laffer Curve), and Laura Tyson (Berkeley, and the President's board of econ. advisers)

The full debate:

BIG GOVERNMENT IS STIFLING THE AMERICAN SPIRIT (IQ2US.ORG) from Intelligence Squared US on Vimeo.



The vote:

Before debate.

For 29%
Against 44%
Can't make a decision 27%

After debate

For 49%
Against 43%
Still can't make a freaking decision 8%

By the rules of the debate a win goes to the FOR team.

Exhibit B from the Harry S. Truman "There is nothing new in the world except the history you do not know" department

A knowledge of history prevents unnecessary kvetching. Case in point: Democratic politics has always been nasty. Today does not hold a candle to yesterday. Today's politicians are pikers compared to our Founding Fathers when it comes to the fine art of character assassination and insult.

Behold the partisan rancor of the campaign of 1800. Jefferson v Adams.




Man. To think these guys were friends at one point. Whew.

It was over 12 years before they patched things up. They died as close as they were in the build up to the revolution, fittingly, within hours of each other, on July 4, 1826 and left us a literary legacy to boot.

In the end, two very big individuals, able to forgive.

LOCAL ACCESS VIDEO: Community Forum 10.27.10 broadcast

Harry Truman on "Potomac Fever"


Katy Couric's revealing turn of phrase when describing her foray outside the comfy confines of Lower Manhattan had me primed for finding this gem from Harry S. Truman, keen observer of human nature:

I'm reading the great 1974 book Plain Speaking, one my grandfather introduced me to, back in Brownwood Texas. It is essentially a collection of transcriptions of interviews with Harry Truman, his family, friends, associates. It was collected during an extended filming, intended for a multi-part television series about Mr. Truman. The project never came to fruition, but we are fortunate that Merle Miller preserved in writing his conversations with the man from Independence. Well, one of Truman's truisms, one that really sticks, and alas, one that is sadly neglected, is this:

"There is nothing new in the world except the history you do not know."

[Truman took this pithy bit of wisdom very seriously. He had the perspective of a Greek tragedian; seeing human nature as essentially unchanging, and therefore liable to lead to repetitions of similar mistakes and foibles, which fact, due to general lack of regard for history, would lead successive generations to the painful but necessary point of having to learn yet again from experience and hard knocks that those mistakes and foibles are indeed mistakes and foibles. A very Greek conception of our condition. Thucydides would approve.

This outlook came from President Truman's lifelong love of books. He was incredibly well read. Among other things, he read the entirety of Plutarch's Lives, and Caesar's Commentaries when a child. He was fluent in Latin. He read the great philosophers and everything "Old Tom" Jefferson wrote. As a child he devoured every one of the 3000 or so books in his local library. Harry Truman was a very formidably educated and informed man. Perhaps the most literate of the 20th century chief executives. Breathtaking. Some of us collect books like stamps. Harry did this AND read every damn one of those books he collected. He saw in the history of our republic, one interesting phenomenon that seemed to repeat; a cycling in the level of respect tendered from those in power in Washington and the Manhattan-Centric Media toward folks in the areas of the country West of the Appalachians. This passage has more to do with the former group than the latter, but President Truman had plenty to say in other parts of this book about that latter group. Anyway, Harry would probably recognize much in today's political climate, what with the Tea Party movement, and the consternation it has caused in some circles:

From the interview. Mr. Miller is asking the questions:

Did You ever have the feeling that some people in Washington are convinced that people in the western part of the country can't read at all? And don't think?

"I did. Oh, my, yes. That's why when there was some talk that Washington might be bombed, while I was President, I wanted to move the capital out to Colorado so the people in the Senate, in the government, many of whom had never been west of the Appalachians would have to come across the country - they'd have to drive; I wouldn't let them fly - would come across and see the country and get to meet people who aren't suffering from what I call Potomac Fever."

What's Potomac Fever?

"It was Woodrow Wilson that coined the phrase. He said that some people come to Washington and grew with their jobs, but he said a lot of other people came, and all they did was swell up. Those that swell up are the ones that have Potomac Fever. They're the people who forget who they are and who sent them there."

Does that happen very often?

"I'm afraid so. Washington is a very easy city for you to forget where you came from and why you got there in the first place."

Did you ever feel you were in any danger of doing that?

No, no. I always came back to Independence every chance I got because the people in Independence, the people in Missouri had been responsible for sending me to Washington. And that's why when I ended up in the White House, after I had finished the job, I came back here. There is where I belong."

Thursday, October 28, 2010

First Night tickets available this weekend

First_Night

As we approach 2011, CityCenter Danbury announced that ticket for First Night will be available beginning the upcoming Halloween at the Green festival.

Press Release:
FIRST NIGHT DANBURY 2010-11”
CREATES “A HAT FULL OF MAGIC”
$5 BUTTONS ON SALE
BEGINNING @ HALLOWEEN ON THE GREEN


***

The theme is “A Hat Full of Magic.” The event is First Night Danbury, the city’s long time tradition of New Year’s eve served up with a family flair and bringing revelers into CityCenter to share in welcoming another year. This year, it’s all Magic. With a Hat Full tipped to the city’s manufacturing legacy.

Buttons for “First Night Danbury” will be available beginning Saturday, October 30th, at CityCenter’s “Halloween on the Green.” Buttons provide access to all First Night Danbury events, in more than 15 venues throughout CityCenter from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. A bird’s eye view of fireworks to ring in the New Year follows, with cider and cookies atop the Patriot Garage.

Buttons can be purchased for $5 on the Green at the Halloween celebration from 2-4PM and also at CityCenter Danbury, 186 Main Street. For more information, visit www.firstnightdanbury.org or call 203 792 1711 To volunteer, email firstnightvolunteer@yahoo.com

There’s always something happening Downtown!

Make sure to visit the CityCenter Danbury website for more information!!!!

Canyonesque


.

File:IrishMannequinNOLAHighsmith.jpg

Irish mannequin in store window during Mardi Gras, New Orleans, Louisiana: photo by Carol M. Highsmith, January 2008 (Library of Congress)


No one asked me where I wanted to be born
said the store window mannequin, but if they had,
I'd have preferred almost anywhere to this festival
of false delights, where the distance between wishes
and dreams is equal to the distance between
promises and lies. That is, it doesn't exist. The deer
do not come down to the water to utter
their spontaneous cries. There's nothing here but concrete.
The deer are legitimately terrified. I too
am terrified. Morning in the canyon, then again night
in the canyon. The gap grows ever more wide
the way the light falls

on a diagonal, the night in its radial aspect
defying meditation. A moon rose in the mind and each thing there
picked up its radial aspect in the night.
Sometime in another other
wise completely ordinary
random century.



http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/pnp/highsm/04200/04236v.jpg

Slot Canyons, Page. Arizona: photo by Carol M. Highsmith, May 2009 (Library of Congress)

LOCAL ACCESS VIDEO: Spotlight On 10.25.10 broadcast

LOCAL ACCESS VIDEO: Bethel Today 10.25.10

FLASHBACK: McLachlan chastised by Democrats and Republicans for introducing anti-gay legislation

McLachlan_FAIL

As I stated in an earlier post, it is a real shame that the Democratic nominee for the 24th district State Senate seat and the town committees that make up that particular district haven't pointed out Mike McLachlan's horribly offensive record at the Capitol.

Because of the lack of media coverage at the Capitol, most people don't have a clue of what their state lawmakers are doing on their behalf. Fortunately, I've been able to cover the activities at the Capitol and in the opinion of state lawmakers on both side of the political spectrum, McLachlan is the most far right extreme politician in Hartford.

In order to give you a better understanding of what the State Senator for the 24th district has actually done at the Capitol, here's a post originally posted back in 2009 that highlights one of McLachlan's darkest moments...a moment where he was chastised by Democrats and Republicans for introducing a piece of legislation that can only be described as anti-gay and highly offensive.

Originally posted Apr 9 2009:



During the CT General Assembly judiciary committee's debate on the implementation of equal protection for same sex couples, State Senator Mike McBlockhead McLachlan offered one of the most offensive amendments ever drafted this session...an amendment which can only be described as homophobic.
Amendment

To: Raised Bill 899

Offered by Sen. McLachlan (JUD)

AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE GUARANTEE OF EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE FOR SAME SEX COUPLES.

Strike section 17 and insert the following in lieu thereof:

Section 17: Section 46a-81r of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof: (Effective from passage)

Sec. 46a-81r. Sexual orientation discrimination: Construction of statutes.

Nothing in sections 4a-60a, 45a-726a, 46a-51, 46a-54, 46a-56, 46a-63, 46a-64b, 46a- 65, 46a-67, 46a-68b and 46a-81a to 46a-81q, inclusive, subsection (e) of section 46a-82, subsection (a) of section 46a-83, and sections 46a-86, 46a-89, 46a-90a, 46a- 98, 46a-98a and 46a-99 shall be deemed or construed (1) to mean the state of Connecticut condones homosexuality or bisexuality or any equivalent lifestyle, (2) to authorize the promotion of homosexuality or bisexuality in educational institutions or require the teaching in educational institutions of homosexuality or bisexuality as an acceptable lifestyle, (3) to authorize or permit the use of numerical goals or quotas, or other types of affirmative action programs, with respect to homosexuality or bisexuality in the administration or enforcement of the provisions of sections 4a~60a, 45a-726a, 46a-51, 46a-54, 46a-56, 46a-63, 46a- 64b, 46a-65, 46a-67, 46a-68b and 46a-81a to 46a-81q, inclusive, subsection (e) of section 46a-82, subsection (a) of section 46a-83, and sections 46a-86, 46a-89, 46a- 90a, 46a-98, 46a-98a and 46a-99,[ (4) to authorize the recognition of or the right of marriage between persons of the same sex, or (5)] or (4) to establish sexual orientation as a specific and separate cultural classification in society.

In a nutshell, what McLachlan was attempting to do is re-introduce legislation that's in direct conflict with the State Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Supreme Court’s decision in Kerrigan v. Department of Public Health...the landmark case that extended the same protections married heterosexual couples receive to same-sex couples.

And as in the case of my previous post, McLachlan's decision in offering his ill-conceived amendment (as well as his eventual opposition to adhere to the court's decision by codifying the state Supreme Court’s decision, was based exclusively on his religious beliefs (as opposed to representing the will of his constituents in the 24th district):

McLachlan Press Release:
Hartford, CT – State Senator Michael McLachlan (R-Danbury) cast a vote last week in opposition to SB 899: An Act Implementing the Guarantee of Equal Protection Under the Constitution of the State for Same Sex Couples. The bill, which passed in the Senate by a vote of 28 to 7, extends the protections under law given to married heterosexual couples to same-sex couples by codifying the state Supreme Court’s decision in Kerrigan v. Department of Public Health. The bill does so by repealing current law which defines marriage as solely between a man and woman and declares that the public position of the State of Connecticut is no longer limited to marriage between a man and a woman. Prior to the Kerrigan decision, gay and lesbian couples in Connecticut were able to obtain civil union status. SB 899 repeals the civil union statutes effective October 1, 2010.

“While I fully recognize and respect the desire of those in same-sex relationships to express and celebrate their union, I do not believe their personal choices should be imposed by the courts on those with strongly-held religious beliefs to the contrary,” said Senator McLachlan. “The decision on this emotional issue made by the Supreme Court in October, 2008 allowing same-sex marriage was a decision that should instead have been placed in the hands of the residents of Connecticut and by extension the General Assembly, not the other way around.”

As you'll read, McLachlan's stance that the decision on same-sex marriage be "placed in the hands of the residents of Connecticut" is red herring and a dishonest attempt to provide cover to express his personal/religious viewpoint over the will of the people. Thankfully, this disgraceful and demeaning amendment from The Family Institute of Connecticut's favorite elected official was slapped down...by Democrats and Republicans.

Watch and listen as members chastise McLachlan for offering such a bigoted and mean spirited amendment.



McLachlan is making a name for himself at the State Capitol...and not in a good way. Instead of running on the promises he made during his campaign, Mayor Boughton's former chief of staff has pretty much done nothing but launch personal attacks against fellow lawmakers, belittle members of the public, or lie while attempting to ram his offensive anti-gay dogma down the throats of the majority of the public who don't agree with him.

As for the public's TAKE on the issue of same sex marriage that McLachlan brought up in his press release. Case in point, here's a Q-poll from 12/17/08.

Connecticut voters support 52 - 39 percent, with 9 percent undecided, the State Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the state, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Given three choices, 43 percent of voters say same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, while 39 percent say they should be allowed to form civil unions but not marry and 12 percent say there should be no legal recognition of same-sex unions, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.

Connecticut voters oppose 61 - 33 percent amending the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Republicans support such an amendment 49 - 46 percent, while Democrats oppose it 73 - 23 percent and independent voters oppose it 58 - 34 percent. Men oppose an amendment to ban same-sex marriage 56 - 38 percent while women oppose it 66 - 28 percent.

Although the poll (and the results of the 2008 election) CLEARLY showed that the majority of people in CT support same-sex marriage AND oppose amending the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, according to an interview Mr. Know-It-All did for the December 20 2008 Fairfield County Catholic newsletter, his anti-gay/homophobic viewpoint trumps everything...and he'll lie about polls results (while stating that he doesn't look at polls) to make his case.
Q: The State Supreme Court decision to legalize gay "marriage" was a devastating blow. Is there anything we can do?

McLachlan: I am opposed to gay marriage. The majority of the state legislature may have agreed with the decision of the Supreme Court, but the majority of the people in our state do not.

I don't believe in the polls, and I don't think we have lost the battle. I do believe that God Almighty has a plan that we don't see. I don't think gay marriage is the plan.

I believe that there are some technicalities in the Kerrigan decision that are yet to be discovered. There are some pretty good lawyers looking at all of this. And it is never too late to consider a constitutional amendment. There are being passed all over the country. Who would have ever believed in a million years that California would have passed one?

As you can see, when faced with the opinion of the people that he knows will be in opposition to his beliefs, McLachlan chooses himself over the people's opinion and describes his attempts to amend the state's constitution in his favor although the state's highest court ruled on the matter in question a month before his interview.

...so much for McLachlan wanting the people's voice to be heard.

Keeping an eye on elected officials that represent you in Hartford is hard work. Unless you have the time to watch CT-N, most times people are clueless to what's happening at the State Capitol, which is why McLachlan is able to run his mouth under the radar of the public. Unfortunately, it seems like McLachlan hasn't changed much from the days when he was walking the halls of City Hall "red-faced" when describing my site, commenting on yours truly, and/or lashing out against organizations that spoke up against Boughton's anti-immigrant legislation such as 287g. McLachlan's bad tempter and belittling comments are legendary in Danbury...now everyone in the state is getting a glimpse into what we in Danbury under Boughton's rule.

NOTE: Here's a sample of feedback from across the state regarding McLachlan's anti-gay crusade.
McLachlan is a real pr*ck. Seriously, a homophobic, hate-pedaling d*ck. Does he really think that it is in the best interest of the citizens to try to codify hate?

Maybe LMF [Love Makes a Family] should reconsider and stay active as long as there are backwards, scared little boys and girls in the legislature.

[...]

His bill is disgusting.....Maclachlan ought to be confronted for his homophobia

More to come...

Meister Analogizer, Wings Over Iraq: Life Imitates Art: Julian Assange and Gaius Baltar

Wow. This is outstanding.

Crispin from Wings Over Iraq has great fun at the expense of Brave Sir Julian Asschapeau, Knight of the Pallid Complexion, Rueful Countenance and Multi-Hued Coif, International Man of Mystery, and Romantic Hero, and in the process Crispin most assuredly gains the prize for creative analogizing with Sci-Fi personages.

Behold the Analogical Carnage.

I stand in awe. Majestic. Brave Sir Julian by all rights, should be quivering in a corner.

I've got to start watching Battlestar Galactica.

Almost Famous


Is that...? No, it can't be...


Photos of Chloe... photos of Chloe published in a BOOK!

Yes, my little pumpkin has taken her first step towards stardom, haha! All courtesy of this ol' blog. You see, I wrote this post and this post about our adventures with Baby Led Weaning and the UK author of the book contacted me. She liked my photos and wanted to know if I'd be interested in submitting photos for use in the new Baby Led Weaning cookbook they were putting together. Would I?? Umm, YES please! And that's how my daughter got published :)
Her photo is the first one in the book, right before the Contents, and the biggest in the book! I think she's pretty cute with her 7-month old chubby fingers & cowlick (though I may be biased!).



I can't say enough about BLW. It has been an easy and fascinating food journey for us over the last twelve months. From six months on, Chloe was able to feed herself solid foods. Because she was doing the feeding, and not us, her dexterity came early and quickly, she learned to judge portion sizes (and would push out any excess with her tongue), and we had no choking episodes at all. And now at 18 months, Chloe is an adventurous eater (her faves are sushi, anything with tomato sauce, and sweet potato). She is now transitioning to cutlery and is getting very good at using her fork and spoon at the same time.

If you'd like to know more about Baby-led Weaning, you can get the book here or pre-order the US version of the cookbook here. Now, quick, somebody get this kid an agent!*


* just joking. I have no desires to be a stage mom!

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Public


.

File:Bethlehem Wall Graffiti 1.jpg

Graffiti by Banksy, Bethlehem: photo by Pawel Ryszawa, 2008

File:The Cat.jpg

Stencil by Banksy, City Road, London: photo by LoopZilla, 2005

File:Banksy.on.the.thekla.arp.jpg

Stencil by Banksy at waterline on social entertainment boat Thekla, central Bristol, England: photo by Adrian Pingstone, 2005

File:Bullfighting advertisement Graffited Leganes 2005-08-12.jpg

Anti-bullfighting inscriptions on bullfight advertisement, Leganés, Spain: photo by Juan Garcia, 2005

File:C-barc.JPG

Street art, Barcelona: photo by Mujinga, 2004

File:BrokenPromises JohnFekner.jpg

Urban decay: Falsas Promesas/Broken Promises; Charlotte Street stencils by John Fekner, South Bronx, New York: photo by John Fekner, 1980

File:MYAdisNoAD.jpg

Stencil by John Fekner, New York: photo by John Fekner, 2007

File:Jftoxicleft.jpg

Toxic by John Fekner, Long Island Expressway, Queens, New York: photo by John Fekner, 2007

File:Graffiti politique de Pompei.jpg

Ancient Pompeii satiric graffito caricaturing a politician, found in the atrium of the Villa of the Mysteries, Pompeii
: photo by Vincent Ramos, 2004

Catalog Number: HPC-000158
The Juan de Onate Inscription at El Morro National Monumemt, New Mexico, dated 1605. It is the oldest historical inscription at El Morro. (Shows vandalism to the inscription almost from the day it was inscribed). Inscription text: "paso por aq[u]i el adelantado don ju/an oñate del descubrimiento de la/ mar del sur/ a 16 de Abril del 1605". At left: "Casados/1727" and "J[ose?]parelo". At right: "P. Joseph de la Candelaria". Photo by George M. Grant, 1934 (National Park Service Historic Photograph Collection)

File:Jesus graffito.jpg

Second century pagan graffito preserved at Palatine Hill museum, Rome, depicting a man worshiping a crucified donkey. Inscription text: ΑΛΕΞΑΜΕΝΟΣ (ΑΛΕΞΑΜΕΝΟC) ("Alexamenos respects God")
: image by Tablar, 2005

File:Banksy graffiti removal.jpg

Graffiti depicting graffiti removal by Banksy, created in May 2008 at Leake Street, London, painted over by August 2008: image by Victor Falk, 2010

Halloween is approaching. Time for some War of the Worlds.

Perhaps the most known radio broadcast of the 20th century was the Mercury Theater's War of the worlds. Less well known are several copycat broadcasts, which, like Orson Welles's production, took extensive and interesting liberties with the H.G. Wells story. One of the better is from 1968, WKBW Buffalo New York. It actually caused a bit of a panic itself, as had the 1938 broadcast. Here is more from WKBW itself. The complete audio of the 1971 rebroadcast is at the bottom of the page..or,

HERE in Windows media format.

Once you get past the hokey 1970s era disk jockeying and treacle 70s top 40 music, and into the "news coverage" portion, it gets quite good. Dig the sound effect typewriters in the background, they are ever present, even to the end. Classic 60s - 70s era radio stock audio.

A tale of two cities

Today, the Democratic State Central committee released a web video that highlights the stark differences between a thriving downtown Stamford and a failed downtown Danbury under Mark Boughton's so-called "leadership."

In Mike McLachlan's world, there woud be no separation of church and state

McLachlan_ReligionGiven his numerous outrageous statements at the Capitol, and the fact that he's done NOTHING for his district in terms of economic development, for someone who's not well liked among Democrats and several of his Republicans colleagues in Hartford, you would think that Democrats would have a field day exposing Mike Mclachlan's less than impressive State Senator record. Unfortunately, this is not the case as the Democratic candidate and town committees that make up the 24th district ran an disappointing campaign and has largely ignored McLachlan's failures at the Capitol.

While I plan to point out McLachlan's failed record in future posts, for this purpose of this write-up, I want to focus on the incumbent State Senator's ultra-conservative view of government and religion.

Here's McLachlan in his own words regarding the separation of church and state (09.17.10):
I remember a lesson in Danbury schools talking about Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. We were taught Jefferson was the “father” of separation of church and state. In fact, the history is far more complicated and even includes a misguided decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1947.

The "misguided" decision McLachlan is referring to the landmark (and incredibly important) opinion by the courts in 1947 Everson v. Board of Education case that is the cornerstone of the country's current interpretation of separation of church and state. If you're not familiar with the particular Supreme Court decision, here a little background:
A New Jersey law authorized payment by local school boards of the costs of transportation to and from schools - including private schools. Of the private schools that benefited from this policy, 96% were parochial Catholic schools. Arch R. Everson, a taxpayer in Ewing Township, filed a lawsuit alleging that this indirect aid to religion through the mechanism of reimbursing parents and students for costs incurred as a result of attending religious schools violated both the New Jersey State Constitution and the First Amendment. After a loss in the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals, then the state's highest court, Everson appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on purely federal constitutional grounds. Arguments were heard on November 20, 1946.

The 5-4 decision was handed down on February 10, 1947. The Court, through Justice Hugo Black, ruled that the state bill was constitutionally permissible because the reimbursements were offered to all students regardless of religion and because the payments were made to parents and not any religious institution. Perhaps as important as the actual outcome, though, was the interpretation given by the entire Court to the Establishment Clause. It reflected a broad interpretation of the Clause that was to guide the Court's decisions for decades to come. Black's language was sweeping:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.

Justice Jackson wrote a dissenting opinion in which he was joined by Justice Frankfurter. Justice Rutledge wrote another dissenting opinion in which he was joined by Justices Frankfurter, Jackson and Burton. The four dissenters agreed with Justice Black's definition of the Establishment Clause, but protested that the principles he laid down ought logically to lead to the invalidation of the challenged law.

In his written dissent, Justice Wiley Rutledge argued that:
"The funds used here were raised by taxation. The Court does not dispute nor could it that their use does in fact give aid and encouragement to religious instruction. It only concludes that this aid is not 'support' in law. But Madison and Jefferson were concerned with aid and support in fact not as a legal conclusion 'entangled in precedents.' Here parents pay money to send their children to parochial schools and funds raised by taxation are used to reimburse them. This not only helps the children to get to school and the parents to send them. It aids them in a substantial way to get the very thing which they are sent to the particular school to secure, namely, religious training and teaching." 330 U.S. 1, 45.


Here's the impact of the opinion in the case that has McLachlan seeing red.
In its first hundred years, the United States Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution's Bill of Rights as a limit on federal government, and considered the states bound only by those rights granted to its citizens by their own state constitutions. Because the federal laws during this period were remote influences at most on the personal affairs of its citizens, minimal attention was paid by the Court to how those provisions in the federal Bill of Rights were to be interpreted. Following the passage of the Thirteenth through Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution at the end of the Civil War, the Supreme Court would hear hundreds of cases involving conflicts over the constitutionality of laws passed by the states. The decisions in these cases were often criticized as resulting more from the biases of the individual Justices than the applicable rule of law or constitutional duty to protect individual rights. But by the 1930s the Court began consistently reasoning that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizens First Amendment protections from even state and local governments, a process known as incorporation.[8] The 1940 decision in Cantwell v. Connecticut was the first Supreme Court decision to apply the First Amendment's religious protections to the states, that case focusing on the so-called Free Exercise Clause. The decision Everson followed in 1947, the first incorporating the Establishment Clause.[9] Numerous state cases followed disentangling the church from public schools, most notably the 1951 New Mexico case of Zellers v. Huff.[10][11][12]

Similar First Amendment cases have flooded the courts in the decades following Everson. Having invoked Thomas Jefferson's metaphor of the wall of separation in the Everson decision, the lawmakers and courts have struggled how to balance governments' dual duty to satisfy both the nonestablishment clause and the free exercise clause contained in the language of the amendment. The majority and dissenting Justices in Everson split over this very question, with Rutledge in the minority insisting the Constitution forbid "every form of public aid or support for religion".

Most important:
Prior to this decision the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"[2] imposed limits on the federal government, while many states continued to grant certain religious denominations legislative or effective privileges.[3] This was the first Supreme Court case incorporating the so-called Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as binding upon the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What McLachlan wants to tear down the wall that separates religion and state and return to the period where state could give the green light to merging religion into government affairs (i.e., schools)...of course, we're talking about McLachlan's religion as opposed to other faiths such as Islam.

McLachlan's later words on this topic are even more dangerous as he invoke the words of one of the most radical, dishonest, individuals in the far-right Christian heritage movement.
One of the best articles I’ve read on this topic is from David Barton:

The Separation of Church and State

In Barton’s closing comment he states, “In summary, the ‘separation’ phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson's explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. 'Separation of church and state' currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant."


When I read the Constitution of the United States today I see many areas our government appears to conflict with the Founding Fathers. This is a fascinating topic for me so I will keep studying.

Here's some info on the highly offensive and wildly inaccurate book from Barton that McLachalan is praising:
David Barton makes a number of inaccurate statements in his anti-separationist book the Myth of Separation and its accompanying videos. Barton also relies heavily on half truths, often failing to tell the whole story behind selected historical incidents.

Two versions of Barton's hour-long video "America's Godly Heritage" are in circulation. Although the newer edition (1992) omits some of the more egregious errors of the earlier tape, both are similar overall and contain the same information. (A condensed, 12-minute version of the tape titled "Foundations of American Government" is also in circulation.)

Since Barton's materials are being used increasingly by the Religious Right in their war against church-state separation, Church & State examined the book and videos carefully and prepared the following analysis of some of Barton's key points.

Barton: The Supreme Court in 1947 lifted the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" from a speech Thomas Jefferson made in 1801.Later in the speech, Jefferson went on to say, "That wall is a one directional wall. It keeps the government from running the church but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government."

Response: This inaccurate claim about Jefferson is undoubtedly Barton's biggest mistake, and he omitted it in the updated version of his tape. But earlier copies remain in wide circulation, and the charge is being recycled repeatedly by the Religious Right.

Barton is wrong on three counts. In truth, Jefferson first used the "wall" metaphor in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. The letter says nothing about the wall being "one directional" and certainly does not assert that it was intended to keep Christian principles in government.

Barton: Fifty-two out of 55 of the founding fathers were "orthodox, evangelical Christians."

Response: This is a good example of the half truths common in Barton's materials. Most of the founders were members of the Church of England, which can hardly be described as an evangelical body. While it is true that many of the framers were devout Christians, that does not make them theological compatriots of today's Religious Right. (Barton must have again realized his mistake. In the updated version of the tape, he says 52 of the framers were simply "orthodox" Christians and adds, "Many of them were evangelicals.")

Richard V. Pierard, history professor at Indiana State University, calls Barton's claim "ridiculous." According to Pierard, the term "evangelical" did not come into wide use in America until the late 19th century and cannot properly be applied to any religious movement of the colonial period. "To try to take a later definition and impose it on these people is a historical anachronism," Pierard said.

Barton: Early versions of the First Amendment considered by the Congress prove that all the framers meant to do was prohibit the establishment of a national church.

Response: This charge is an ironic one, because early versions of the First Amendment prove exactly the opposite. Before the language of the First Amendment we know today was settled on, drafts were submitted to Congress explicitly forbidding only the establishment of a national church or one denomination in preference to any other. These were all rejected. If Barton were correct, and all the framers wanted to do was bar an official Church of the United Slates, one of these early versions would have sufficed.

Barton: In 1844 the Supreme Court ruled that public schools must include Christian worship.

Response: This is an oversimplified interpretation of a complex Supreme Court decision in a case known as Vidal v. Girard's Executors. The controversy centered around the request of Stephen Girard, a wealthy Pennsylvanian whose will instructed that his money be used to set up a school for orphans. Girard, a native of France who was wary of clericalism, stipulated in the will that no members of the clergy could hold office in the school or even visit the campus.

Girard's heirs challenged the bequest, but the Supreme Court, In a unanimous opinion, refused to nullify the stipulation. The will, the justices noted, had barred only clergy, not religious instruction entirely. The court also noted that the religious freedom provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution were broad enough to provide "complete protection of every variety of religious opinion...and must have been intended to extend equally to all sects, whether they were Jews or infidels."

Doing a post on Barton's twisted views on the separation of church and state could take all day but I HIGHLY recommend that click here and learn more about the person McLachlan admires as it speaks volume about the state senator's opinion regarding one of the most important elements of the First Amendment.

This is just one tiny example of McLachlan's outlandish and highly troubling record and why voters should question whether or not they would want someone with this extreme mentality representing their interest in Hartford.

...more later.

Inspiration

Have you heard of Inspiration for Decoration? Its one of my go-to-blogs when I'm in need of some, well, inspiration for decoration. Here's some of my favourite images (and best of all she provides most of the links to the original image source).










Do you have any inspiration sources you'd like to share? I also like Houzz and the Canadian House & Home website. So many pretty pictures!

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

More Wiki-linkage

First, Victor Davis Hanson

Key section:


So we now have a war within a war — one to defeat the enemy, and quite another, to preemptively backtrack, footnote, and explain the context of one’s actions for future armchair judges and jurors who will adjudicate battle behavior from the library carrel. Note here that no other government bureau or private entity functions under quite such rules of engagement — the communications of Mr. Obama’s staff are not public; we don’t read the internal memos of Warren Buffett or Bill Gates; the minutes of New York Times editorial meetings remain private; we don’t even get to read the private communications and discussions that the often petulant Julian Assange conducts with his own WikiLeaks team and learn whether there is dissent among his staff over his own ethics and methods. Surely a leaker of any and all things should not demand privacy for himself?

Note also that there is no attempt at systematic or coherent leaking. WikiLeaks mostly targets the West. It may now and then leak to us something about dastardly behavior by an African or Chinese bureau or religious sect, but it really does not tend to uncover things about the Russian, Iranian, Cuban, or Chinese armed forces in any way commensurate with its fixation on the U.S. military. It either has no wish to, has no means to, or is very afraid of the consequences — in the fashion of the reaction to the Danish cartoons — should it choose to do so. I suppose that WikiLeaks believes that the Western military can “handle” a climate of zero confidentiality and still protect the likes of Mr. Assange and his team. After all, as a high-profile, elite Westerner, he assumes a level of comfort, security, civil rights, freedom, and affluence in his many international travels and operations not accorded to most who live under other systems, and impossible without the protective umbrella of the military he seems so bent on destroying.


Crispin at Wings Over Iraq


Julian Assange's tirade against the West, and the US in particular, is little removed from classic have-and-have-not rhetoric endemic to revolutionaries from Karl Marx to Saul Alinsky. Yet, it differs from have/have-not theory in one important respect. In classic have/have-not theory, "have-nots" must assume power before adopting the negative traits of the "haves", restructuring the rules of the system in order to retain power. In Julian Assange's Wikileaks world, both the "haves" and the "have-nots" survive by maintaining their secrets. The West, specifically the American Department of Defense, retains power via a monopoly on secrets. Hypocritically, Julian Assange's Wikileaks can not maintain total transparency, either. In fact, one might argue, that the Department of Defense has acted with even greater transparency than Wikileaks has.



..and Brave Sir Julian, while being a legend in his own mind is hardly a legend as an objective matter of fact. What is more, he leaves much collateral damage in his wake, and is all too eager to blame that fact on the collateral damage

Indeed, the leaked documents, according to the Pentagon, are no risk to intelligence sources or methods, though some note that the Taliban may still retaliate against nearly 1,800 "collaborators" identified in the leaked documents.

Not only has Wikileaks failed to produce the desired effects among the governments of the West, it's failed in its duty towards its membership as well.


Wikileaks' most notorious source, Private First Class Bradley Manning, is in almost as dire a predicament. Facing up to 52 years of federal imprisonment, his fate has scarcely perturbed Julian Assange, who dismissed Manning as if he were unavoidable collateral damage.


Manning is not the first instance of "collateral damage" resulting from Wikileaks' exploits. Though Wikileaks boasted earlier this year that that none of its sources had ever been knowingly compromised, this is not entirely true. In August 2007, Wikileaks released a report from the Kenyan National Commission on Human Rights, linking the Kenyan police to the torture or death of nearly 500 men. Shortly thereafter, the Kenyan police assassinated two human rights activists. Assange has disavowed any responsibility by Wikileaks, instead claiming that the two murdered activists were not "acting in an anonymous way".


Mr. Assange has had his fifteen minutes of fame. Though he has destroyed the lives of countless compatriots, he's done little to undermine, influence, or disrupt US policy. If anything, he's merely confirmed the worst accusations about America's supposed ally, Pakistan, and indicted Iran in supporting violence within Iraq. In that regard, Assange is hardly super-empowered.
And the Washington Times, via BlackFive suggests something I mentioned once or twice, CYBERWAR. Unleash the full power of this armed and operational army of code weilding bots. Bwhahahah! Give Wikileaks a technogeektastic version of the Jawa treatment, complete with C3P0 providing the one fingered salute:

Relentless attacks on the servers and sites dispensing this classified information would have a debilitating effect on the leakers' morale and help widen the fissures that already have appeared in the group. This battle could offer some practical experience to American cyberwarriors who one day will face even greater threats from state-sponsored Web war.


And of course, make every effort to convince Brave Sir Julian, the Knight of the Woeful Countenance, Pasty Complexion, and Multi-Hued Coif, that The Shadow..er..they..I mean THEY are around every corner waiting for him, as inevitable as a guilty conscience.

Fabrication


.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/pnp/highsm/04800/04802r.jpg

Mural, Route 66, Tucumcari, New Mexico: photo by Carol M. Highsmith, July 2006 (Library of Congress)



for better
or
worse

people
make
art

what
it
is




http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/pnp/highsm/04300/04317r.jpg

Mural, Baltimore, Maryland: photo by Carol M. Highsmith, September 2008 (Library of Congress)

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/pnp/highsm/04300/04313r.jpg

Mural, Baltimore, Maryland: photo by Carol M. Highsmith, September 2008 (Library of Congress)

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/pnp/highsm/04300/04315r.jpg

Mural, Baltimore, Maryland: photo by Carol M. Highsmith, September 2008 (Library of Congress)

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/pnp/highsm/04100/04106r.jpg

Mona Lisa mural, Columbus, Ohio: photo by Carol M. Highsmith, July 2009 (Library of Congress)

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/pnp/highsm/07000/07065r.jpg

Mural, Dothan, Alabama: photo by Carol M. Highsmith, April 2010 (Library of Congress)

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/pnp/highsm/04200/04205r.jpg

Mural, Mission District, San Francisco, California: photo by Carol M. Highsmith, April 2009 (Library of Congress)

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/pnp/highsm/06300/06386r.jpg

Gas station next to hand painted revolutionary mural, Havana, Cuba: photo by Carol M. Highsmith, January 2010 (Library of Congress)

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/pnp/highsm/06300/06378r.jpg

Mural in Chinatown, Havana, Cuba: photo by Carol M. Highsmith, January 2010 (Library of Congress)

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/pnp/highsm/06000/06070r.jpg

Murals painted on a building on Dragones Street in Chinatown section of Havana, Cuba: photo by Carol M. Highsmith, January 2010 (Library of Congress)

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/pnp/highsm/06300/06304r.jpg

Committee of the Defense of the Revolution (CDR) mural, Havana, Cuba: photo by Carol M. Highsmith, January 2010 (Library of Congress)

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/pnp/highsm/05500/05579r.jpg

Murals painted on abandoned building on Lower Dexter Avenue in Montgomery, Alabama: photo by Carol M. Highsmith, February 2010 (Library of Congress)

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/pnp/highsm/05500/05576r.jpg

Murals painted on abandoned building on Lower Dexter Avenue in Montgomery, Alabama: photo by Carol M. Highsmith, February 2010 (Library of Congress)

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/pnp/highsm/05500/05577r.jpg

Murals painted on abandoned building on Lower Dexter Avenue in Montgomery, Alabama: photo by Carol M. Highsmith, February 2010 (Library of Congress)