An Ode to all my Favorite Teachers over the years... even those who help me to learn now.

Hello My Wonderful Friends;

  Sappy Saturday, I guess for me.  I feel good today, and perhaps that brings about these posts...

Last week as I was out in the yard working on something of little consequence but definitely not paying enough attention to Gracie, I heard an exclamation from the road and realized that she had gone running out to visit with someone walking by.  This is a quiet neighborhood, so lots of people walk these roads for exercise and wool gathering.  Gracie normally won't run out to visit, but something must have convinced her that it would be ok.  I, of course, disciplined her for it.  But, the older lady that was so surprised by 60 pounds of fuzzy faced goofiness was not put out.  I called Gracie back over so that she could get a scratch behind the ears and the nice lady and I talked for a few minutes.
  Come to find out, she was my pre-school teacher.  People, that was over 40-years ago!!  She said she always remembers the great ones.  I responded, "Yeah, and the ones that keep you shaking your head in wonder" as I mimed covering my forehead and shaking my head in disbelief.  She laughed and patted me on the shoulder and said, "Yes, those too".

  So, here is to the wonderful people like our friend Miles, who somehow pound into thick skulls like mine the concepts of math, composition, reading, history, philosophy, etc.  Oddly enough, some superheros don't wear capes.

  http://justajeepguydc.blogspot.com/2013/08/what-teachers-make-poem-by-taylor-mali.html 

Please click on the link and see this great post.   Thanks.

Nakie pic of Gracie on her bed... sort of

Hi Friends;

  I gave Gracie a bath today.  She has been playing hard, and somehow that always includes rollling in the dirt and other wonderfully - to her - smelly things.  Something odd about a dog; they find something particularly nasty smelling and their first idea is to roll in it.  Not the wisest of animals, but very fun to have around.
  Gracie's collar was quite dirty, so it had to go through the washing with the towels.  So, for one of the rare times of her life, Gracie is nakie.  Doesn't seem to mind... maybe my Gracie is a naturist??
  Hugs all!

Inflation Calculator

Hello Everyone;

  I was searching for some understandings on my wages recently and found this interesting site.  It includes an inflation calculator.  Plug in the dollar amount and for what year, and it will calculate the equivilant to the year you desire.  Such as:  $5.00 in 1970 is equivelent to a bit over $30 now.   Here is the site:

http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

  Want to see something interesting?  Plug in the difficult wage your Daddy always used to talk about when he started out and see what that equates to now.   For me, my father's so very difficult to handle starting wage is twice what I make.

  Bring tissues.... this will hurt.

Free Speech, not so free...

New Proposal Could Singlehandedly Cripple Free Speech Online

By Lee Rowland, Staff Attorney, ACLU & Gabe Rottman, Legislative Counsel, ACLU Washington Legislative Office at 5:10pm   http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech-national-security-technology-and-liberty/new-proposal-could-singlehandedly-cripple

The Internet has evolved into a true marketplace for every idea – if you can think of it, you can find it on the web. That the online world has blossomed into this virtual town square teeming with diverse content is no accident. It is largely a creation of federal law – specifically, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1998. Section 230 is directly responsible for the free, messy, uncensored, and often brilliant culture of online speech. By prohibiting most state civil or criminal liability for something somebody else writes or posts, it created the single most important legal protection that exists for websites, bloggers, and other internet users. Under Section 230, a website can provide a platform for all speech without worrying that if one of its online users posts something stupid, critical, defamatory, or unlawful, the website itself can be held responsible.

What does this mean for the web as we know it? Almost everything. It means that Yelp can't be held legally responsible for a negative restaurant review written by one of its users. It means Craigslist doesn't have to screen every personal ad to make sure it isn't a cleverly-disguised prostitution pitch. It means that Reddit could, and did, offer its users a thread tracking the manhunt for the Boston Marathon bombers in real time without censoring users' reports from the BPD scanner. In short, Section 230 makes sure that any website that offers individuals a place to speak — comment threads, group forums, consumer reviews, political meet-ups, you name it — doesn't have to police its users to make sure every post is within the letter of state and federal law.

But last week a group of state attorneys general wrote a letter to Congress asking to change all that — and their misguided proposal threatens to undermine the legal regime that has allowed speech to flourish. The AGs have asked Congress to amend Section 230 so that websites can be liable based on accessory, accomplice, facilitation, or similar legal theories for users' violations of state criminal laws. If their proposal were to pass, it would mean that every website on the Internet could be subject to legal liability for violations of an unfathomable number of state laws. As Matt Zimmerman over at EFF points out, these include such infamous crimes as posting Netflix passwords online, andpublishing someone's else's defamatory speech (which is illegal under a number of state laws). No website owner in her right mind would offer an uncensored user forum knowing that the website could be investigated, shut down, or charged with a felony just for one user's speech. We've joined a letter in response to the proposal that was submitted to Congress yesterday.

History shows us that that the likely result – the dramatic chilling of online speech – isn't a theoretical slippery slope. Section 230 was actually passed in response to the dark early days of the Internet, when websites faced lawsuits over speech by their users. Section 230 wasn't passed in order to provide a legal haven for sites hosting illegal behavior, but rather in response to legal claims that sites that remove offensive or illegal user-generated content then become legally responsible for that content. The legislative history of Section 230 refers specifically to a New York state case — Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy — in which a Long Island investment banking firm successfully sued a bulletin board for hosting anonymous defamatory comments because it had exercised "editorial" control to remove "offensive" language. The case had the perverse effect of discouraging sites from regulating offensive (or illegal) content, and led directly to Section 230.

The AGs' proposal would turn the Internet as we know it upside-down. Without Section 230's safe harbor to ensure that websites aren't legally on the hook for content created by their users, websites would be responsible for policing every user-submitted word for possible criminal violations — which simply isn't feasible. Avoiding legal risk would require even the smallest blog to hire an army of lawyers to compare user content against the mosaic of all 50 states' ever-changing criminal laws. More realistically, websites would do one of two things. They would draft their compliance policies to censor user-generated speech to match the most restrictive state law, or they would simply not host user-generated content. It's certainly what their lawyers would advise them to do. If Section 230 is stripped of its protections, it wouldn't take long for the vibrant culture of free speech to disappear from the web. That would be nothing short of a national tragedy.

Section 230's safe harbor provisions have been positive for free speech, resulting in the spectacular diversity of content we now expect online. More than 220 years after the adoption of the First Amendment, the web has fulfilled our foundational promise of an uncensored marketplace of ideas where free speech truly flourishes. Keeping Section 230 intact will ensure that websites aren't punished for providing the soapbox.

Learn more about the First Amendment and other civil liberties issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

Who Needs God? I have Religion!

 
When I was young, what seems both so very long ago and just a moment away, my memories of going to Church are of Easter Lilies.  The vivid rich green of the leaves set  as a sweeping background to the majestic white and new green of the flower.  In the spring, these flowers dressed the sanctuary and seemed to capture the attention of a little boy with attention problems so very well.  I can't tell you what the sermons were about, the text readings, and I don't even remember the Pastors.  But, I remember those beautiful flowers; they are my memories of childhood in religion, when I was yet innocent.

  These next images are my adulthood, my nightmares, of men standing in the very white of purity, calling themselves men of God, looking down upon the masses in impunity and hate.  Where Jesus is recorded as telling men to love their neighbor, those who now say they are speaking for him call out damnation and violence.    Who are these men?  Why do they hate people so much? How could they do this?

  It is an easy mistake to look upon targets of opportunity, people of difference, and presume that beating upon them makes one powerful, wise, above them.  It is an easy mistake to presume that such things are without cost, without consequence.  But, in life, there is always someone, somewhere who is bigger, more powerful. 

I want to go back to the church of my youth.  I want that innocence back.  I want to return to the hard folding metal chairs and cheap off-blue carpeting when I dressed in my Sunday Best to sit with my feet swinging in the air and dream of what God must be as I stared into the perfection of that Lily flower.  It seems a time long gone now, when I feel so sad and tired after reading stories like this: http://scottiestoybox.com/2013/07/29/russian-neo-nazi-groups-tricking-and-torturing-gay-male-teenagers-the-blood-is-on-putins-hands-july-25-2013-the-gaily-grind/
  That, I guess, is the charm of childhood.  To live in awe of the magical and wonderful things of life like Santa Clause, and think that no one could be more powerful than my Dad.        

I wonder what kids think about in church now when the preachers go on and on, beyond their ability to focus or understand?  I wonder if they see those flowers or look up and see the Cross and contemplate a God Who Loves, or a God Who Hates?