When the Web Connects our World, and Defines It

I’ll admit it: I am a pack-rat. I horde well-written articles (and sometimes websites). I keep them in tabs on Firefox, sometimes by the dozen.

Just like any other pack-rat, when I leave a tab open, I’m always thinking “I’m sure I will find a way to use that soon”. Sometimes I never do, and eventually I have to close the tab (or Firefox quits and refuses to save them for me anyway).

This is not one of those days. These two articles and a website are all great examples about how the Web communicates conversations while it is re-defining us.

• This one speaks to the true intrusion of Gmail into many of our lives.
• This one speaks to the power of the Internet to connect: it is a website where you can pay 30 euros (around 40 US) to have a Palestinian artist tag the dividing wall with any message you like (as long as it is not hateful).
• And this one I found through the Colbert Report–it is Sandra Day O’Connor’s foray into Web-based educational resources on the judiciary. So cool.

So, here are three tabs I can close, what a relief. Speaking of ways the web connects our world and defines it.

Inspirational Quote:

“I get a lot of people complaining about my ambiguity, often in cases which there is nothing ambigous at all. As far as I can see, people read it when they were half stoned and listening to the TV. Then they come back and say gee, it’s impossible to figure out what’s going on in a story.” –Gene Wolfe

Loving v Virginia and Prop 8

I’ve hear a lot of references to Loving v Virginia in the current Marriage Equality movement (full citation for law geeks at the end). I decided to make use of my LexisNexus subscription to see what it was all about. The decision itself is about 5 pages long. It is short, sweet, and exemplifies the clear prose I enjoy reading from the Warren Court.

I was looking for support of gay marriage in this decision. This is sort of like Feminists for Life arguing that Mary Wollstonecraft was pro-life—I am trying to find in Warren’s words things he himself may not have thought appropriate to find in them.

Surprisingly, I found some great quotes to promote broader definitions of marriage. I found them not only the decision itself but also in the anti-miscegenation laws quoted in the notes.

Loving v Virginia Quotations which could be used to support Gay Marriage:

“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” Chief Justice Warren, Loving v Virginia.

“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.   Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942).See also  Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations.  Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.” Chief Justice Warren, Loving v Virginia.

This quote below is interesting because of its use of the word “persons” (who may marry) rather than “a man and a woman” (who may marry). The text is from one of Virginia’s anti-miscegenation laws as quoted in Loving v Virginia. Warning: the text that follows includes racist and offensive language and terms.

“Intermarriage prohibited; meaning of term ‘white persons.’ — It shall hereafter be unlawful for any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian.  For the purpose of this chapter, the term ‘white person’ shall apply only to such person as has no trace whatever of any blood other than Caucasian; but persons who have one-sixteenth or less of the blood of the American Indian and have no other non-Caucasic blood shall be deemed to be white persons.  All laws heretofore passed and now in effect regarding the intermarriage of white and colored persons shall apply to marriages prohibited by this chapter.” Va. Code Ann. ß 20-54 (1960 Repl. Vol.).

According to the decision, at the time of Loving v Virginia the following States had anti-miscegenation laws. According to the linked article, States with asterisks (*) currently have laws against same-sex marriage (I am not distinguishing from constitutional and non-constitutional bans):

• Alabama*
• Arkansas*
• Delaware
• Florida*
• Georgia*
• Kentucky*
• Louisiana*
• Mississippi*
• Missouri*
• North Carolina
• Oklahoma*
• South Carolina*
• Tennessee*
• Texas*
• West Virginia

According to the decision, at the time of Loving v Virginia the following states had repealed anti-miscegenation laws. According to the linked article, states with asterisks (*) currently have laws against same-sex marriage (I am not distinguishing from constitutional and non-constitutional bans)::

• Arizona*
• California*
• Colorado*
• Idaho*
• Indiana*
• Maryland*
• Montana*
• Nebraska*
• Nevada*
• North Dakota*
• Oregon*
• South Dakota*
• Utah*
• Wyoming*

Historical note:

The first state court to recognize that miscegenation statutes violate the Equal Protection Clause was the Supreme Court of California.   Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal. 2d 711, 198 P. 2d 17 (1948).

–

I am not arguing that anti-miscegenation statutes were written to include the possibility of gay marriage. Given the overlap between States which saw fit to ban interracial marriage and States which see fit to ban same-sex marriage, I am sure they were not. But I believe the pervasive use of the word “persons” does violence to the validity of the Yes On 8 crowds’ insistence that gendered terms have always been part of modern legal definitions of marriage.

Legal citation

LOVING ET UX. v. VIRGINIA
No. 395
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
388 U.S. 1; 87 S. Ct. 1817; 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010; 1967 U.S. LEXIS 1082
April 10, 1967, Argued
June 12, 1967, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY:  APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA.
DISPOSITION:  206 Va. 924, 147 S. E. 2d 78, reversed.

Inspirational Quote:

Amatory: expressing love

Copyright infringement? You decide.

I am learning (and in two cases relearning) arias for my new voice teacher right now. One of the techniques I picked up at Saltnote Stageworks is YouTubing songs I am learning to hear other’s interpretations and stagings for character ideas. However there is another kind of video on YouTube I have run across at least a dozen times now and was having fun thinking about. It is a video where someone (probably with way to much time on their hands) has put a video of images of a given score scrolling across the page while the music plays. Here is an example of such a video using one of my arias (Che Faro Senza Euridice):

Now, the copyright question is: is this use transformative? As the Stanford Univeristiy Libraries page says:

1. The Transformative Factor: The Purpose and Character of Your Use

In a 1994 case, the Supreme Court emphasized this first factor as being a primary indicator of fair use. At issue is whether the material has been used to help create something new, or merely copied verbatim into another work.

This one of the four questions for determining fair use–which is by definition unauthorized use of a copyrighted piece.

Anyway, there are two potential infringements in this video: the almost certainly unauthorized use of Marilyn Horne’s voice/the orchestra’s instruments on the background recording and the images of the score itself which I recognize from my own copies.

Is the work civileso put into creating images and making them scroll in perfect time to the music (assuming s/he didn’t use a program which does it automatically?) enough to make this use transformative?

You decide.

Inspirational Quote:

I don’t want to achieve immortality through my work… I want to achieve it through not dying.
Woody Allen

Hilary v Barak–post response to MSNBC article

This is something I posted to the MSNBC article “Hilary: Obama is out of touch with families”. There’s a lot of vitriol against either Hilary or Barak by supporters of the other in the comments for news stories like this and I wanted to say my piece about how we need to structure the debate to come out of this contest with a Democrat in the White House. Enjoy!

Perhaps I am being silly here, but who here support[s] John McCain?

Anyone?

Going once…

Fine.

So, rather than trying to find the most effective way to put down Hilary (she doesn’t have a normal family because her husband cheats and her daughter overachieves. Well, anyone seen the divorce rate or the growth in women attending Law and Med school? Husbands (and wives) cheat and their children fight their way to the top. Her family outline seems pretty darn normal to me) or the best way to put down Barak (out of touch. Well, yes, all three of the candidates are millionaires. I don’t care what their personal net worth is if they support the policies I support).

How about we distinguish how they will beat John McCain, because right now he’s the lumbering turtle in this rabbit race and to be effective in November both candidates must finds ways to distinguish themselves by beating *him* down.

Clinton doesn’t want to spend 100 years in Iraq.

Obama doesn’t want to overturn Roe V Wade and bring coat-hangers into the bathrooms of our daughters, mothers and wives.

McCain is the real enemy, I am cool with passionate debate but I know come November, I will vote for *anyone* rather than John McCain.

Both candidates do it for me.

I still support Clinton. However now every argument I have with my Obama friends always ends with “but I will vote for either rather than John McCain, who hates babies”.

(Btw, I say John McCain hates babies because he would rather they be born and then starved, beaten or microwaved to death than that they be aborted. Sounds like hate to me).

See, I don’t mind being vitriolic when it is against a candidate whose view on abortion, equal rights and proper military deployment are anathema to me.

Inspirational Quote:

But language is a treacherous thing, a most unsure vehicle, and it can seldom arrange descriptive words in such a way that they will not inflate the facts–by help of the reader’s imagination, which is always ready to take a hand and work for nothing, and do the bulk of it at that.
- Mark Twain Following the Equator

Clever Spam

Sometimes it takes nothing but pure cynicism and an eye for grammatical errors to tell what is Spam. Especially when craigslist replies mean someone might be contacting me for a job…

from H & F FABRICS <patricksnell2008@live.com>
reply-to patricksnell2008@live.com,
[...]

I have been directed to bring to you the offer of work online from Home/Temporarily and get paid weekly. We are glad to offer you for a job position at our company, H & F FABRICS. We need someone to work for the company as a Representative/Book keeper in the USA/CANADA. This is in view of our not having an office presently in the USA/CANADA. You don’t need to have an Office and this certainly wont disturb any form of work you have going at the moment. Our integrated yarn and fabric manufacturing operations use state-of-the-art textile equipment from the world’s leading suppliers. Order processing, production monitoring and process flow are seamlessly integrated through a company-wide computer network.

* The average monthly income is about 1500.00 USD.

Your tasks are:

1. Receive payment from Customers

2. Cash Payment at your Bank

3. Deduct 10% which will be your percentage/pay on Payment processed

4. Forward balance after deduction of percentage/pay to any of the

offices Payment is to be forwarded either by Money Gramm or Western Union Money Transfer) or any Local Money transfers take barely hours, so it will give us a possibility to get customer’s payment almost immediately. For example you’ve got 3000.00 USD, you take your income: $300.00 USD Send to us: 2700.00 USD,First month you will have 5-10 transactions on 3000.00-4000.00 USD so you may calculate your income.For example 10 transactions on 3500.00 USD gives you $6300.00 USD Plus your basic monthly salary is 1500.00 USD Total: 3000.00 USD per month After establishing a close co-operation with us you’ll be able to operate with larger orders and you’ll be able to earn more.Our payments will be issued out in your name and you can have them cashed in your bank or other Cashing Services.Deduct your weekly salary and forward the balance to the company via western union money transfer or money gramme money transfer .We understand it is an unusual and incredible job position. This job takes only 3-7 hours per week. You’ll have a lot of free time doing another job, you’ll get good income and regular job.But this job is very challenging and you should understand it. We are looking only for the worker who satisfies our requirements and will be an earnest assistant. We are glad to offer this job position to you. If you feel that you are a serious and earnest worker and you want to work for H & F FABRICS, kindly email us and let us know about what your intrest is.

Kindly send all reply to patricksnell2008@live.com

Best Regards

Patrick snell

Also, Patrick Snell is CNN correspondent, not the head of a fictitious scamming clothing producer. Also, see the ScamAlert posting. While the warning is a little hysterical, it is right–if an offer sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Inspirational Quote:

But the truth is, that when a Library expels a book of mine and leaves an unexpurgated Bible lying around where unprotected youth and age can get hold of it, the deep unconscious irony of it delights me and doesn’t anger me.-Mark Twain Letter to Mrs. F. G. Whitmore, 2/7/1907

Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay

Ok, this looks pretty hilarious. Somehow these two goofballs (ok, they’re actually intense actors but they usually play goofballs) have managed to take some of the most contentious issues of today–Guantanamo bay, racial profiling, racism, police and governmental bias, airport security, citizen’s rights, and include them in a real way in a movie about two college students going to Amsterdam to get high.
However the only pickle in the pudding came when I tried to view an alternate trailer–because the first one was hilarious and I wanted more free funnies. When I clicked on it I got the following message:

You little pervert, are you over 17?

The MPAA has concluded that this film contains some adult content (theme, language, violence, nudity, sex and drug use are among the contents considered). In order to show you these materials, we must verify that you are aged 17 years or older.

To ensure verification, please provide information as it is listed on your current Driver’s License or State-issued ID.

First Name:
Last Name:
Date of Birth:
Zip Code:

By clicking the “submit” button, I agree that I am at least 17 years of age, I authorize you to confirm my age by checking the accuracy of the information I have submitted against the government-issued identification, and I agree to the Terms of Use government this website.

To the information
First: “Heck”
Last: “No”
DOB: “121280″
Zipcode: “94303″

I received the message “Sorry, we can not verify your age/identity at this time…”

Now, back when Congress was trying to legislate morality with the Children’s Defense Act, the Children’s Internet Protection Act and the Child Online Protection Act. From Reno v ACLU (1997) we get this quote:

“Commercial pornographic sites that charge their users for access have assigned them passwords as a method of age verification. The record does not contain any evidence concerning the reliability of these technologies. Even if passwords are effective for commercial purveyors of indecent material, the District Court found that an adult password requirement would impose significant burdens on noncommercial sites, both because they would discourage users from accessing their sites and because the cost of creating and [*857] maintaining such screening systems would be “beyond their reach.” (Page 15)

So the Supreme Court of the United States has already said age verification is not a viable form of CYA for purveyors of censored material. I believe this technology may still “impose significant burdens on noncommercial sites” but Harold and Kumar has money to spend. I believe because this is censorship imposed by the MPAA, it is unamerican but not illegal. However the greater issue for met is the statement “I authorize you to confirm my age by checking the accuracy of the information I have submitted against the government-issued identification” because that means a third party, for-profit business with no legal mandate can verify my personally identifying information, but only if that information corresponds to a US-issued ID.

My information is verified by Integrity Services who say they get their information:

“Using publicly available data that is digitized, indexed, formatted, and enhanced with other commercial data sources, Integrity uses the Aristotle COSMOS™ global database to power its age and id verification solutions. We provide full coverage for the United States and coverage for 157 nations abroad.” (FAQ: What are your data sources?)

There is a database with the first, last, birthday and current zipcode availible which is easily accessible to some random company? Because here’s the thing: I live a lot of places. My name has changed in the past few years. How often is this information updated? What right have they to keep my information? Maybe this is all naive, but I am so not ok having people like this knowing where I am, when I was born etc–talk about identity theft.

So let’s review.

1. Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay looks hilarious and politically stimulating.
2. Someone on their publicity team has decided to let the MPAA determine who visits parts of their sites.
3. The MPAA is forcing the implementation of a technology specifically mentioned by the Supreme Court as unreasonably restrictive (though since the case is over a decade old, maybe they figure the spirit is as outdated as the technology mentioned–bad news for the US legal system).
4. A for-profit company has a database of the personal identifying information of all US citizens and citizens of 157 other countries in a database so that our age can be verified so we can watch a movie with cussing and nudity.

Riiiiiight.

Inspirational Quote:

“Nothing will work unless you do.” – Maya Angelou

Little Dead Girls–my favorite comic ever

I love my friends–they are all so very cool. Here is one of my best friends from high school with her own web comic. Sinead has been working on her characters for Little Dead Girls since high school where she rocked AP Studio Art (and got it started at our geeky science and math school). I’ve looked through the first week’s and wow, I love her characters! Expect her subjects to vary from politics, to religion, to American life to living as an individual in a conformist society. Go check out Little Dead Girls at it current home,

http://littledeadgirls.comicgenesis.com/

I so proud of her!

Inspirational Quote:

“There is no crisis,” Obama said. “Guns are plentiful. We have multiple guns for every man, woman and child in this country.” (On whether to protect US gun makers made bitter by liability suits, “Gunmakers may get suit-proof vest” Chicago Tribune, July 29, 2005)

John Adams Project: ACLU Fights for Justice for Guantanamo Detainees

The ACLU is nuts. But so was John Adams:

“One of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country.”

–John Adams on his decision to defend British soldiers charged with killing Americans in the Boston Massacre

The American Civil Liberties Union is fighting for things which should seem obvious to all justice minded people: torture (and evidence gained from torture) is not ok; secret evidence and trials are not ok; being held without charge is not ok. And you know what? Quite a few people agree with the ACLU. Their list of statements of support for the John Adams Project include:

Norman Reimer, Executive Director of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

Janet Reno, Former United States Attorney General

Retired Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, Navy Judge Advocate General from 1997 to 2000, Current President and Dean, Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, New Hampshire

Patricia Perry, Mother of John William Perry, an NYPD officer who was killed on 9/11 while helping people escape from the World Trade Center

Lt. Colonel Stuart Couch, Lt. Colonel Stuart Couch is a lawyer and officer in the United States Marine Corps. In 2004, Lt. Colonel Couch withdrew from the prosecution of a Guantánamo Bay detainee, Mohamedou Ould Slahi, because he believed the evidence he was asked to use to prosecute Slahi had been obtained through torture, and was therefore inadmissible under U.S. and international law.

William Webster, Chairman of the Homeland Security Advisory Council. Director of the FBI from 1978 to 1987 and Director of the CIA from 1987 to 1991, Webster is a former federal judge and served in the U.S. Navy during World War II

September 11th Advocates, The September 11th Advocates are women whose spouses died on 9/11. The group was instrumental in the formation of the 9/11 Commissions and later called for a new, independent panel.

September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, Peaceful Tomorrows is an organization founded by family members of those killed on September 11th who have united to turn our grief into action for peace

Suppose you think the ACLU defends a lot of weird cases. Nazis and Porn and stuff the average person doe not want to talk about. And you would be right: the ACLU does amazing work stopping bad precedent from becoming doctrine. I think that makes them some of the coolest people around, but it also makes them unpopular and awkwardly intense. Fine. But right now they’re not fighting for anything tangential; they are fighting for some of the basic principals of the United States of America:

• You can’t torture people
• You need to tell them the evidence against them
• You need to have a public trial
• You can’t hold people without trial

The John Adams Project is as simple as that.

Inspirational Quote:

Amendment 8 – Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment 6 – Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Sex Ed Resource

I decided that, in addition to complaining about censored Sex Ed, I would try to help fix that problem by finding a Sex Ed good resource (good defined as orientation neutral, well written and scare-tactic free/sex-positive). I found Scarleteen.com which seems to be a good comprehensive sexual education resource (it’s also at this time the first hit on Google for the phrase “Sex Ed” for what it’s worth).

I like Scarleteen’s sexual orientation agnostic approach as well as their writers’ gentle tone. My favorite article was “Margaret Sanger’s Disneyland: Choosing Contraceptives” which compares everything from condoms to Emergency Contraception (EC) to withdrawal. They are described in terms of

1. Failure Rates for Perfect Use/Typical Use
2. Cost
3. Ease (of convincing most people to use that form),
4. Prescription needed?
5. Health risks
6. Sexual side effects
7. STI protection (Sexually Transmitted Infections, formerly known as Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs), formerly known as venereal diseases (VDs))
8. Overall Benefits

There is a lot of good information there.

They have sections on many aspects of sexual health and life, including everything from the expenses which are associated with becoming sexually active to answering delicate questions of readers.

Go and check it out yourself! I would recommend this site as both a good supplement and beginning point of sexual education.

PS: if you are looking for good quotes and data on abstinence-only Sex Ed, go to Planned Parenthood’s issue area on the subject. See the Inspirational Quote for a little more.

Inspirational Quote:

Waxman Report Identifies Misinformation in Abstinence-Only Curriculum

In 2004, Rep. Henry Waxman (D— CA), released a report about the state of abstinence-only programs. The report found that the curricula used by more than two-thirds of government-funded abstinence-only programs contain misleading or inaccurate information about abortion, contraception, genetics, and sexually transmitted infections:

• The abstinence-only program Me, My World, My Future states, “Tubal and cervical pregnancies are increased following abortions.” According to obstetric textbooks, previous abortions are not correlated with ectopic pregnancies (Cunningham et al., 2001).

• Choosing the Best, The Big Talk Book states, “[R]esearch confirms that 14 percent of the women who use condoms scrupulously for birth control become pregnant within a year.” In fact, when used correctly and consistently, only two percent of couples who rely on the latex condom as their primary form of contraception will experience an unintended pregnancy (Hatcher et al., 2004).

• Why kNOw states, “Twenty-four chromosomes from the mother and 24 from the father join to create [a fetus].” Human cells are actually comprised of 46 chromosomes; 23 from each parent (Cunningham et al., 2001).

• WAIT Training incorrectly states that HIV can be transmitted through tears and sweat. According to the CDC, HIV is only transmissible through blood, semen, and vaginal secretions.

The Waxman Report also found that many abstinence-only curricula even go so far as to blur the line between religion and science, and treat gender stereotypes as scientific fact (Committee on Government Reform, 2004).

Why I support Hilary (more details in responce to comments)

This post is a response to two very different comments on my post “Misogyny lives (and why I support Hilary Clinton)“.

I support Hilary because I feel she is the single best mainstream candidate (there I go, capitulating to CNN’s valuation of a viable candidate) not because she is a woman. That would be absurd. To Eric, I wish there was a viable cyber-libertarian candidate who was neither isolationist nor so rampantly anti-government that s/he could see no use for it at all, but until that time comes I sort of have to make do.

My problem with Barak is that, though I get shivers listening to him speak, I can also get that reaction listening to a tenor sing a high C. I’ve looked at his voting record:

Planned Parenthood Senate Scorecard

ACLU Senate Scorecard

and compared it to Hilary’s:

Planned Parenthood Senate Scorecard

ACLU Senate Scorecard

My biggest problem is with Senator Obama is that he did not vote on some of the greatest human rights issues of our decade (see the Planned Parenthood Senate Scorecard for the “Abortion Ban” (‘03), “Fetal Rights” (‘04) and “The Right to Choose” (‘03)).

I’m not saying Senator Obama is anti-choice or pro-life, but because he wasn’t there he has had no voice on these major issues.

Obama 12? Maybe! Obama 16? Even better. I like his style and if he could backup his message of “si se puede” with some “lo he hecho” I would be comfortable voting for him. But until he shows the kind of comfort on Capital Hill that Senator Clinton does, I do not consider him a good choice for president.

Because we have seen what idealism without insider support does in a divided country (see President Carter, best ex-president we have but as a President he was incredibly in effective). To use a bumber-sticker phrase: the President of the United States of America is not an entry level job. Senator Obama has so much potential but I am unswayed by his outsider posture: I think you have to know a system to be effective within it, and I think he needs to learn to live inside the belt-way a little before he makes much of how broken it is.

Here is my best evidence:

Barak on Petraeus:

Hilary on Petraeus:

Here Clinton impressed the hell out of me; Obama did not. Rambling about the date of the inquiry and posturing about his voting record is not his job: his job is to get answers from a very important and influential General on a disastrous war and try to help the USA and Iraq and Afghanistan come to a successful outcome for as many people as possible. Clinton was on topic, clear and got the General to clarify a worrying discrepancy in his testimony (she got him to say he would be adverse to staying the course if the situation in Iraq was exactly the same as it is now).

Obama’s worrying tendency to complain about the ills of government may be popular, but there is much that is right and good in our government. Most of our highways work; most of our schools teach; most of citizens can get passports to travel. Though CNN and other buzz-word news sources make it sound different, most of the time our country works. It is never good enough–yes. But too often outsiders see only what is going wrong and don’t notice that budgets get passed; cybercrime is fought effectively; college students get grants. And I am tired of hearing complaints from someone who prides himself on his ignorance of the system.

One of the sourest complaints against Senator Clinton is that she is too comfortable with how Washington works. But do you know what? I’m ok with that. I’d rather have a President who is comfortable enough to get something done than one who will make pretty speeches and give us four years of recession and unfulfilled promises. Because let’s be clear: to get something done in the US political capital, the President will have to know politics.

I am of course open to discussion and comments and linked posts are welcome. Thank you,

Inspirational Quote:

“The first duty of love – is to listen.” Paul Tillich