Rest in Peace, Ms. Angelou

I'm so saddened today about the passing of our premier poet, Maya Angelou.  She was an extraordinary poet and an extraordinary woman.

As a poet myself, I recognize her literary talent and achievements as truly special.  She was definitely gifted as shown by her autobiographical books and her collections of poetry.  She truly rose from her troubled childhood to be a foremost practitioner of her craft.

She enriched us all and we are also poorer for her loss.

Rest in Peace, Ms. Angelou and keep your expressive spirit active somewhere in the greater cosmos.

Thinking Is Dangerous!

I'm always searching for writing exercises, writing prompts, blogging ideas and any activities to stimulate that muse.  Today, I happened across a quote from John Dewey:

"Anyone who has begun to think, places some portion of the world in jeopardy.” 

This is so relevant today.  There probably isn't a day now that you don't find some report of dissent being squelched somewhere around the world.  You also can find numerous reports of people rebuffed or ridiculed for asking questions.  Isn't it usually the result of "thinking" that stirs folks to dissent or ask questions?

Unfortunately, it seems as though critical thinking is not emphasized in education as it once was.  If there's anything we need, it would be MORE critical thinking.  We need students to be able to eventually take their places in society and help solve societal, political, communication, technical, and business problems.  Critical thinking is crucial for that.  The ability to sift through and analyze information, to formulate cogent questions, and to weigh arguments can indeed have practical as well as intellectual benefits.

Which brings us back to Dewey.  If "thinking" - critical thinking - is so necessary, why is is so dangerous?  There may be many reasons.  Maybe the powers that be don't want their policies questioned.  Maybe we'd have to look at history differently if we analytically asked different questions.  Thinking might lead us to conclude we might have to examine - maybe even change - some of our own beliefs.  Now THAT can really be scary.

In any event, if we are to progress as a society, if we are to progress as humanity, we must think - and think critically.  We once thought the Sun revolves around the Earth.  Courageous thinkers were eventually proven right.  It was once thought that certain Americans should be denied the right to vote.  Courageous thinkers and activists led the way to change.  We cannot, must not do less than to continue to use our brainpower critically.

My Freedom/Liberty Concept Map

Wrong Again!

Learning today of the Supreme Court declining to hear Hedges v. Obama - you know, the lawsuit challenging the "indefinite detention" provision of the NDAA really made me shake my head in dismay.


For background, here's a story from the Long Island Press (Be sure to read Tangerine? Jennifer? Bolen's facebook post in its entirety), and another from Truth Dig (where you can find articles by Chris Hedges).


I find that the plaintiffs are quite brave to have engaged in this challenge.  The entire idea of indefinite detention is scary.  It's not a stretch to imagine folks being picked up, held without an attorney or legal redress, for who know how long.  It's not a stretch to imagine this could be used against dissenters.  And get this - check out what is says on SCOTUS Blog  So if your not harmed, you don't have standing - but in this case, if you ARE harmed, how can you get any legal redress?  Terrible reasoning, I feel, by the Appeals Court and an equally terrible decision by the Supreme Court not to review this.


Wake up, folks!

Tales of Oligarchy

Greetings, fellow 99%ers!


In case you haven't heard of their study , economic researchers Gilens and Page have studied decades worth of economic and political data and have found that in essence,we are living in an oligarchy.
An oligarchy - where the elites and privileged control policy.  In fact, their conclusion is that unless the policy preference of the 99%  is aligned with the preference of that infamous 1%, the policy has little chance of being adopted.  In the article I linked to, there is a link to their pdf document.  I will be going through that and trying to digest their data and arguments.  It's not that long and at first glance seems to be fairly readable.
French economist Thomas Piketty has garnered a lot of notoriety for his book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, in which he explains that we are rapidly heading toward oligarchy or are already there.  He argues that rising wealth inequality threatens capitalism itself.
I've long thought that greed would wreak havoc on us; well, greed and complacency.  We've continued to not challenge policies that enable the elite to control all the shots.
Now for a truly disturbing display of oligarchic privilege, read about this event   Sorry about the title of the post, but I didn't write it.
I just don't understand why more people aren't up and arms over this sad state of economic affairs.

Any Hope for This Supreme Court?

Well, the Supreme Court upheld a ban on college affirmative action programs  in Michigan.

I just shake my head.  Such programs can really make a difference in the lives of students and enable them to pursue their degrees at a more varied list of institutions.  Please note the track record of what happens when such bans are created.  Justice Sotomayor in her dissent, cited the drop in the percentage of African-American and Latino-American students at UCLA and UC Berkeley after a California ban on such programs. The NY Times has stunning graphics which detail what has happened to African-American and Hispanic-American enrollment in colleges in states having bans on affirmative action. 
"Supporters" of such bans may argue they're against 'discrimination' - but the results of the bans show that the effect is certainly discriminatory - against minorities. And in today's world, where we bemoan the fact that not enough of our young people graduate from college, I feel such bans are counter-productive to the educational interests of our nation.
If you read Malcolm Gladwell's book, Outliers, he has a great section about the worth of affirmative action.  Maybe I should send a copy to the Attorney General of Michigan. Oh, and the members of the Supreme Court as well. 

This is Justice?

I'm not a lawyer.  But I'm a very concerned citizen, especially after the very recent ruling in a lawsuit brought by the families of three drone strike victims.  In Al-Aulaqiu v. Panetta  handed down by Judge Collyer, the suit was dismissed. This hasn't gotten much coverage, so if you haven't heard of it, here's a general article at The Guardian.  For some analysis, here are two good sources: 1) Marcy Wheeler's article at the Empty Wheel blog found here,  and an article on the Bivens aspect of the ruling by Steve Vladeck, found here .




I find this ruling very troubling.  It gives a pass for the government to kill, assassinate whatever American citizen - with no due process and often on dubious intelligence.  Not only that, the actual process of targeting can be very flawed, as shown by the revelations in this piece from The Intercept.




It decidedly ignores the Fourth Amendment. Judge Collyer noted drones are to kill, not seize.  But as Steve Vladeck points out, the decision of Tennessee v. Garner specifically says lethal force is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.  In that context I don't see how this recent decision can be based on sound reasoning.




I have not seen much of anything written about the implications of this ruling to the separation of powers and checks and balances of our three branches of government.  It seems to me - and again a big disclaimer, I'm no lawyer - that this ruling is the Judicial Branch shirking a duty to check the overreach and unconstitutional activity of the Executive Branch.  Oh, yes - I did see in surfing several news articles about this that the Judge herself said something to the effect of "The executive is not a check on the executive."  And she comes up with this decision?  Any knowledgeable lawyer reading this (are you there, Lois?) should feel free to comment; I'd love to hear your take on this!




I definitely find myself in sympathy with the reasoning of the families' attorneys from the ACLU and the Centre for Constitutional Rights (you can quickly find and read their comments in the general article at The Guardian).  I'm not sure if this will be or can be appealed.  I thought someone posted - maybe at Marcy Wheeler's blog? - that they hoped it wouldn't stand up.  So there we are.  With the way some of these courts are ruling these days, even on appeal, I'm not sure how hopeful I am for a better result.  It really makes one shake one's head and wonder: how did we get here?


UPDATE:  In case anyone wants a reference to Judge Collyer's remark about the 'executive' - go here.