MonaVie

I like it!

http://www.the-team.biz/mv2475822/tabid/148/Default.aspx

Thai Travel

Hey Garfield, I just discovered this awesome event called the Ultimate Thailand Explorers, hosted by the Tourism Authority of Thailand. I really think you should apply. Basically, they are giving five teams of people from around the world free holidays in Thailand. If you are selected, all you have to do is spend six days exploring one of five awesome destinations (Bangkok, Samui, Phuket, Chiang Mai, and Pattya) and then write stories, take pictures and shoot videos about what you do each day.

After you upload the pictures, stories and videos onto the internet you then tell people to vote for you. How easy and fun is that??! The team whose profile gets the most online votes wins $10,000 cash and $5,000 in prizes (including more free Thai travel, Blackberry cell phones, and Sony video recorders!) The other contestants get some pretty cool prizes too.

You have until October 15th to shoot your audition video and apply for the contest. Judges will select 25 semifinalists so your video needs to be good. The whole rest of the contest will be determined by online voting, so it helps if you have lots of facebook and/or myspace friends and know how to utilize the internet to get people to watch your videos and vote for you. I think you would be perfect for this.

Go to www.ultimatethailandexplorers.com so that you can apply.

My You Tube Channel

Nothing there yet, but I have a few thoughts.

http://www.youtube.com/user/gajventures#user/D69D55A04C4AF2FD

Michael Jackson - Exclusive behind the scenes funeral photos

There were rules to me getting these:

1) copyrighted, so I cannot sell them

2) I can't give them away

3) I can't tell where I got them

RIP Michael Jackson 1958-2009

The Long Road to Obama

1803

Marbury v. Madison was the first instance in which a law passed by Congress was declared unconstitutional. The decision greatly expanded the power of the Court by establishing its right to overturn acts of Congress, a power not explicitly granted by the Constitution. Initially the case involved Secretary of State James Madison, who refused to seat four judicial appointees although they had been confirmed by the Senate.

1819

McCulloch v. Maryland upheld the right of Congress to create a Bank of the United States, ruling that it was a power implied but not enumerated by the Constitution. The case is significant because it advanced the doctrine of implied powers, or a loose construction of the Constitution. The Court, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, would sanction laws reflecting “the letter and spirit” of the Constitution.

1824

Gibbons v. Ogden defined broadly Congress's right to regulate commerce. Aaron Ogden had filed suit in New York against Thomas Gibbons for operating a rival steamboat service between New York and New Jersey ports. Ogden had exclusive rights to operate steamboats in New York under a state law, while Gibbons held a federal license. Gibbons lost the case and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed the decision. The Court held that the New York law was unconstitutional, since the power to regulate interstate commerce, which extended to the regulation of navigation, belonged exclusively to Congress. In the 20th century, Chief Justice John Marshall's broad definition of commerce was used to uphold civil rights.

1857

Dred Scott v. Sandford was a highly controversial case that intensified the national debate over slavery. The case involved Dred Scott, a slave, who was taken from a slave state to a free territory. Scott filed a lawsuit claiming that because he had lived on free soil he was entitled to his freedom. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney disagreed, ruling that blacks were not citizens and therefore could not sue in federal court. Taney further inflamed antislavery forces by declaring that Congress had no right to ban slavery from U.S. territories.

1896

Plessy v. Ferguson was the infamous case that asserted that “equal but separate accommodations” for blacks on railroad cars did not violate the “equal protection under the laws” clause of the 14th Amendment. By defending the constitutionality of racial segregation, the Court paved the way for the repressive Jim Crow laws of the South. The lone dissenter on the Court, Justice John Marshall Harlan, protested, “The thin disguise of ‘equal’ accommodations…will not mislead anyone.”

1954

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka invalidated racial segregation in schools and led to the unraveling of de jure segregation in all areas of public life. In the unanimous decision spearheaded by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Court invalidated the Plessy ruling, declaring “in the field of public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place” and contending that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” Future Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall was one of the NAACP lawyers who successfully argued the case.

1963

Gideon v. Wainwright guaranteed a defendant's right to legal counsel. The Supreme Court overturned the Florida felony conviction of Clarence Earl Gideon, who had defended himself after having been denied a request for free counsel. The Court held that the state's failure to provide counsel for a defendant charged with a felony violated the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. Gideon was given another trial, and with a court-appointed lawyer defending him, he was acquitted.

1964

New York Times v. Sullivan extended the protection offered the press by the First Amendment. L.B. Sullivan, a police commissioner in Montgomery, Ala., had filed a libel suit against the New York Times for publishing inaccurate information about certain actions taken by the Montgomery police department. In overturning a lower court's decision, the Supreme Court held that debate on public issues would be inhibited if public officials could sue for inaccuracies that were made by mistake. The ruling made it more difficult for public officials to bring libel charges against the press, since the official had to prove that a harmful untruth was told maliciously and with reckless disregard for truth.

1966

Miranda v. Arizona was another case that helped define the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. At the center of the case was Ernesto Miranda, who had confessed to a crime during police questioning without knowing he had a right to have an attorney present. Based on his confession, Miranda was convicted. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, ruling that criminal suspects must be warned of their rights before they are questioned by police. These rights are: the right to remain silent, to have an attorney present, and, if the suspect cannot afford an attorney, to have one appointed by the state. The police must also warn suspects that any statements they make can be used against them in court. Miranda was retried without the confession and convicted.

1973

Roe v. Wade legalized abortion and is at the center of the current controversy between “pro-life” and “pro-choice” advocates. The Court ruled that a woman has the right to an abortion without interference from the government in the first trimester of pregnancy, contending that it is part of her “right to privacy.” The Court maintained that right to privacy is not absolute, however, and granted states the right to intervene in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy.

1978

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke imposed limitations on affirmative action to ensure that providing greater opportunities for minorities did not come at the expense of the rights of the majority. In other words, affirmative action was unfair if it lead to reverse discrimination. The case involved the University of Calif., Davis, Medical School and Allan Bakke, a white applicant who was rejected twice even though there were minority applicants admitted with significantly lower scores than his. A closely divided Court ruled that while race was a legitimate factor in school admissions, the use of rigid quotas was not permissible.

2003

Grutter v. Bollinger upheld the University of Michigan Law School's consideration of race and ethnicity in admissions. In her majority opinion, Justice O'Connor said that the law school used a “highly individualized, holistic review of each applicant's file.” Race, she said, was not used in a “mechanical way.” Therefore, the university's program was consistent with the requirement of “individualized consideration” set in 1978's Bakke case. “In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity,” O'Connor said. However, the court ruled that the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions system, which awarded 20 points to black, Hispanic, and American-Indian applicants, was “nonindividualized, mechanical,” and thus unconstitutional.

My Thoughts – The ‘Gates” Affair

My Thoughts – The ‘Gates” Affair

You know me, never at a lost when it comes to having an opinion on the zeitgeist. The last few days, it has all been about race and race relations, sparked by ‘The Gates Affair’. For those who are unaware, here is the back story.

Harvard University Professor, Henry (Skip) Louis Gates Jr., returns home from a trip and finds that his door will not open. He and his black driver try to force the door which is witnessed by a resident in the neighborhood. The neighbor dutifully calls the police because it looks like two men are trying to break into a house.

Once the police arrive, Prof. Skip Gates has found his way into his home, and answers their knock on the door. From there it’s all downhill and a matter of whose story you choose to believe. You can read the newspaper accounts of the incident by clicking here.

President Obama during his press conference commented on the situation with a reckless choice of words. It was almost as though the visceral reaction churning in the pit of his stomach found their way to his mouth before his brain could coordinate with his mouth to deliver his thoughts in polispeak. Instead he chose to say that the police “acted stupidly.” That you can read about by clicking here.

I am writing this though not to regurgitate facts or figure out fiction but to let you know what I think, so here it is.

I think that everyone started off right and ended up wrong. Prof. Gates was not wrong to try to enter his own home, the neighbor was not wrong in calling the police, the police were not wrong to investigate. Where everyone went wrong was with the events that led up to the arrest of Prof. Gates.

If the neighbor had not called to report a possible break in, and it was, then this would have been framed as a racist neighbor not caring because they knew it was the home of a Black Professor.

If the police had not shown up to investigate, and there was a break in, this would have been framed as the racist police department not caring that the home of a black intellectual was being broken into.

If the police had not insisted on making sure that there was no one else in the house because they had a credible report that there were two men trying to force open a door, then this would have been framed differently had there been people in the house that the professor was not aware of. The police had to make sure that the story fit all the facts in front of them.

The Prof. Gates could have been more cordial with the men and women in blue who were looking out for his best interest when they showed up to investigate a report of a break and enter at his home.

Now here is where it gets tricky, maybe he was. Maybe he was cordial and tried to explain the situation about the door being jammed, but the police needed to be sure he lived there…or did they? It is possible that they did ask him for the one thing that they would not have asked of anyone who was not black…absolute proof that he belonged in that house.

By “absolute” I don’t mean show me your driver’s license with your address on it, but show me that you are the legal owner of this house. I can see that happening and it would easily explain the Professor’s rage, if indeed that did occur. There is thorough, and then there is thorough! But I have no proof that did happen so it is a thought that I am just callously tossing out there.

What we do know is that Prof. Gates was arrested in his home. This is the real tricky part of the scenario. How do you get arrested in your own home without having committed any crime? And this is where the police were wrong in their actions and to what the President might have been referring to as acting stupidly.

Before I explain, let me just say that I believe the police officer, Sgt. James Crowley. I believe he is an honest man, a good man, a decent man. I believe he believes he had every right to arrest Prof. Gates, and the facts, of the case, prove that he did. The only problem, I have, is with the discretion used in making this particular arrest.

The police finally figured out that this middle aged, walking with a cane, 155 pound, unarmed man really was the owner and they arrested him for being verbally abusive? I mean, he didn’t threaten them, in his home, in any way except with his tongue. That you can be arrested in your home for being verbally abusive to strangers in your home- notwithstanding the badges- is outrageous! Where was the cause for this arrest? He was mean to me…so I arrested him?

All of this brings me back to the question, what do I think? I think this was not a black and white issue. This was a pure intellectual brute power struggle. This was Prof. Gates and Sgt. Crowley engaged in a battle to exert futile intellectual control, one over the other. It was UFC Battle of the Brains part 1.

Prof. Gates never believed he was being picked on for being black, he just felt he was being picked on and chose the tools/words which he felt were appropriate to defend himself. The Officer was never threatened but felt that his stature as an office of the law was being maligned and he used the tools and remedies at his disposal.

At the end of the day both were right in their actions and both were so very wrong. That these two good men could allow a clear misunderstanding to lead the President to make his unfortunate comments is inexcusable. They really all should just meet up in the White House, have that beer that the President offered and have a good laugh at how silly they all were.

Chris's answer and my follow up

Chris

While I appreciate your opinion I must point out 2 very fundamental differences in the WWII and present day scenarios...
First, inside Germany there was not the same level of "as it happened" media attention on the atrocities - there was no free press reporting the crimes as they happened whereas in the US these crimes happened right under our noses - there was a congressional debate on whether or not waterboarding constitutes torture for chrissakes!
Second, the military tribunals were conducted immediately upon the ending of the war and the German public was able to purge and move on with their lives with some sense of justice. This has already dragged on for 6 years with nothing but lack of accountability and denials.

Garfield

Sure, but your point of view comes from the same breeding grounds of the philosophy terrorists adopt. Americans pay taxes, taxes buy bombs and bullets which kill our people therefore every American deserves to die.

Not every American agreed with the Bush administration, not every American ever agrees with their President but they are not all cut from the same cloth and need to be condemned as criminals.

I will agree with one thing, without an investigation into any wrongdoing and consequences for any wrongdoing, then it is possible that a great crime may have been committed which may go unpunished. Worse yet, it sets a precedent that can easily be followed in future similar situations which is the real problem with not deconstructing events to figure if and how mistakes were made.