At the end of the second world war, particularly the fall of Berlin/end of the European
fighting-hundreds of thousands of Jews who survived the holocaust were fortunate
enough to escape either the Nazis or the Soviets..or both.
Many of the orphaned children of these ended up in 'displaced persons' camps in the around the U.K.  For years,
it was a normal thing to hear hundreds of names during BBC radio broadcasts.
The really interesting, and inspiring thing, was not just that the broadcasters
took the time and effort to mention the individuals (which is pretty unusual even then)
The truly inspiring thing is that these individual holocaust survivors would be
given a form (or asked from a form) to fill out with any relative or friend of the family
who might be contacted anywhere in the world essentially.
This isnt as ridiculous as it might seem at first. If you and your family are about
to flee a war or oppressive/dangerous conditions and are part of a people who
have a LARGE history of fleeing violence, prejudice, injustice, death, and destruction,
you have some cultural memory and/or experience to draw upon.  You are aware that your family
may, possibly will, be separated, and additionally, that the difference between
life and death may easily be a name.  So you have every member of your family old enough to
speak memorize the names of relatives and friends who might provide shelter from
whatever danger you are fleeing.
So when these jews in the displaced persons camps were told to list anyone who
might be able to help them, get them settled, give them work, or a home--they had
some names to give.  At least, a large number did. So, on any given evening in
1946 a person in London might turn on the radio to hear "Leela Silvenberg, age 9,formerly of Dresden,
Germany, escaped the camp in Aushwitz, and has lost her entire family.  If Robert Silver of
London's East End or Hanah Ableton of Brighton or someone who knows either of those
persons hears this broadcast please contact..."
Surprisingly, over 80% of the persons whose names were broadcast were located and
a large percentage (although not all-as some were such awful human beings as to tell
some of the refugees to 'stand on [their] own two feet', etc) DID take in the refugees
or help them to find family members in other countries.  Some of the refugees were
even sent to places like the US as a result of persons here hearing a name they
recognized as a child of a relative or friend and volunteering to take them in.

I was able to hear a few of the BBC broadcasts asking for assistance on behalf
of these children recently and it was incredibly moving.
Why aren't we doind this for refugees from North Africa that are in camps in Italy
or those who are running from fighting in Syria or Lebanon?
Surely there are friends and relatives of some of these people in the US or Europe?
Others could even volunteer. I would volunteer to give a pair of refugee children a
home for a few months until they could be found a more permanent solution.  Im sure
there are others who would do the same.
I HAVE to believe that the majority of humanity hasn't changed all that much since
1946.  Most people would still help a suffering and alone child if they had the
capability. 
I just wanted to expunge the thought from my mind by writing it down.  Its SOOOO incredibly
frustrating that things like money and advertisers would keep broadcasters from doing
a similar thing for refugees now. I mean, really, are we comfortable with a culture
that puts the sale of toothpaste or the lauding of its taste, etc above the alleviation
of a child's suffering?
And, if we are, is there a reason we should even bother continuing on if our cultural
is that bereft of humanity and true value?

just a thought.

Today is St Joseph's day 3/19/15
Primarily celebrated in New Orleans, its a reminder of the cooperation between Native Americans and the slave and freedmen (before the natives were almost totally wiped out, of course).  Its not really important to much of anyone but myself--however, my grandmother was Cherokee and my granfather Choctaw, and I was born by the res in Red Oak Oklahoma.
So the holiday appeals to me for personal cultural reasons.  It also appeals to me because its a piece of LEGIT Mardi Gras culture that goes back to the pre "Girls Gone Wild" era.  So its a reminder that the French Quarter and all the bullshit frat/sorority/drunken douchebaggery is NOT the real thing.  
Like a lot of modern Americans so removed from their original roots or whose roots are so mixed as to be indistinguishable, thoughout my life I've acquired my own cultural ideals (including holidays and celebrations).  Although its enough for a separate blog (or book really), a lot of people do that, and also choose their own 'family' as they go along.  That's what someone is referring to when they say "you have two families-the one youre born with and the one you make".  Anyways, from a squat in a condemned building in New Orleans, I acquired this holiday and continue to keep it alive. I hope I am successful in passing it to my family as well.
So, put a feather in your hair to support the various chiefs of the 'tribes' (crews) in New Orleans or just take a second to google some history.  Either way, I hope you take a moment to celebrate a good, non-halmark holiday.

CORRUPTION + WEALTH = US CONGRESS
As far as wealth goes, it can also often be an indicator of corruption--or the extent/degree thereof.
In the entire US Congress -the House of Representatives and the Senate-the wealthiest members-Darrell Issa & Micheal McCaul are worth btw 250-300 million-and that's definately a good indicator of corruption.  For example, McCaul's so wealthy primarily because his wife inherited 99% of their money as a child of Clear Channel Communications' founder.  No real surprise he's consistently supported consolidation in the communications industry and using the FCC to basically protect and guarantee the profitability of the few major communications companies..but in the  National"People's" Congress of China-the members don't even pretend to be unconcerned and the combined wealth of Issa and McCaul BOTH wouldn't even count in the top 100 of wealthiest members. So that indicates that China's government in general is corrupt, not just one or two or even twenty-members of it. Again using McCaul as an example of corruption, granted he's a pretty clear and obvious one, in China he'd not just have a family that made him wealthy that was concentrated in a particular industry..he's simply own part of that industry. In fact, in places that corrupt-where persons speaking out on behalf of women's rights are jailed as recently as last month-the fear and control that a member of that corrupt regime exercises would allow them to simply walk into any company and just take whatever they want.

Today, the 12th of February 2015,
 is 25 -TWENTY FIVE -years since Nelson Mandela was released from prison in South Africa.  I remember vaguely the event, and the news coverage showed millions of exuberant people all over the world.  They seemed to be saying "If Mandela can be released in the last holdout of state-sanctioned racism (Apartheid), then everything can change!"
Of course, today one immediately asks "has everything changed?..or.has anything changed?".  The answer is both "absolutely" and "not really".  This is because racism isn't ONE problem.  It's a million, or more exactly, 12.7 billion problems.
So there's not ONE answer, and the question has to be asked again tomorrow.  What I mean is a person can choose to hire a black woman one day, and then tell his golf partner that 'they' shouldn't be allowed on the course the next.  The first decision doesn't give them a 'lifetime non-racist' stamp, and they are equally guilty regardless of their earlier actions in the latter instance.
The real attraction of racism (and sexism and many other 'isms') is the ease it provides any diliemma, problem, action, issue, or decision.  It's so much easier to say 'everyone who works at the McDonald's in our neighborhood is black even though no one in our neighborhood is black, because the black people belong there.'  As opposed to asking oneself:  'why are these people willing to travel so far for minimum wage?', and the hundred other questions that scenario raises.  Obviously, the hardest to ask is : "Why am I comfortable with this?" or "Why don't I ask if this IS questionable?". 
The most insidious route this easy answer takes is conceptual.  Its much, much easier to think that all of any group a person might identify as a group by such readily and easily apparent attributes as relative skin tone are legitimately conceptualized of as one unit.  If this is the way a person thinks, then they can avoid thousands of dilemmas, questions, issues, and having to change their own preconceptions.  A person employing this paradigm might think "Well, those employees are at McDonalds because they are less capable.  They are less capable because their skin tone is much darker than mine."  It's easier to address societal issues that a person faces on a daily basis by conceptualizing society as comprised of a few  units (White, Immigrant, Religious, etc) than understanding that a society such as this one is comprised of billions of complicated individuals which contravene group incorporation merely by exisiting in reality.  The latter understanding is more difficult.  It's that simple.
Perhaps I could compact all this ideation into a few phrases:
"Racism continues to exist because its a shortcut to thinking and people are too lazy to take the long way."
However, in the end, the ability of the same people of the world to address this problem in discussion amongst themselves exists in the form it does today because of the sacrifice of other people like Mandela...and every person who thinks of him today or thinks of what his struggle meant--is a success for that struggle he fought for so long.

No idea y got this n image search for "im hot sign" but its absurd and stupid..so similar in ideology if not semiology.  I mean, really? yea, youre a spoiled, incredibly overpaid..did I mention spoiled?..

There should be an acknowledged international sign language sign for "hot"..the spitting on finger then touching your ass thing for "im hot" doesnt work for men at all.  Unless they're REALLY effemminate.  And it doesn't really work for "you're hot" if you point at that girl then go through the motions.
She'll just think you're saying "Hey Girl, Im super-gay!"
Which, by the way, is COMPLETELY the opposite of what you'd have been trying to communicate.
I'm taking suggestions.  So far we have :
-sticking finger in mouth, then taking out, shaking, and bringing in front of eyes and making a 'surprised face' (thus acting out 'Its you giving me a fever' or 'yure hot like a fever')
-sticking out the foot, touching toe to ground, then acting as if toe has been burned  (thus saying 'Im walking on lava' or 'you're making me walk on lava'?  id walk on lava for you?..hard to see the thought behind that submission)
So, LOTS of help URGENTLY NEEDED!
ps-this is because there are a couple of really superhot girls I see when Im running every day and they are driving their cars wherever.

5am. I get up at 5 every day.  But some days I REALLY shouldn't.

For example, today when I got out the french press to make some necessary coffee...I did this:

Yep.
I put the coffee in the BOTTOM of the press. 
Duh.

Eric Garner WAS MURDERED. PERIOD.

On July 17, 2014, Eric Garner, a black man, died in Tomkinsville-a neighborhood of Staten Island, New York, after police officer Daniel Pantaleo put him in a chokehold.
Thankfully, the whole attack was caught on video.
On December 3, a Grand Jury decided NOT to indict Pantaleo on any charge.
In case you're the average American nd don't really know what this means-it is NOT a proper trial or anything of the sort, it is the first step in the felony trial process.  The Grand Jury actually has a LOWER standard of proof, meaning instead of finding they believe someone did something "beyond a reasonable doubt" (a higher, criminal trial standard), they only need to have a, generally, found that there is "probable cause" to believe that someone did something, can be charged with a certain charge, etc.
The fact that this did not happen is what is referred to in legal circles as "bullshit".

Having myself spent 3 years studying law culminating in the dubious achievement of a Juris Doctorate (no, you don't have to call me "Doctor" anything, unless im trying to get reservations), I have a slightly better idea of how wrong the decision was. Since this is truly upsetting, I'm going to explain EXACTLY why Pantaleo should not only have been indicted, but CONVICTED of Murdering another human being.

Now, in the general legal understanding of criminal law, there are three elements of ANY crime:  Mens Rhea, Actus Rheus, and Causation.  Just to be unnecessarily obtuse and confusing, the legal community continues to employ a dead language even in 2014.  Since NO ONE speaks Latin, its necessary to explain that Mens Rhea is the mental element, or the "criminal's" intent-meaning they meant to do the Actus.  The Actus Rheus is, surprisingly, the act.  If the "criminal" intends to do something, but only dreams and never does-this element has not been satisfied.  Of course these both must concur, or happen at once to apply. Although the third element, causation, is not latin, it can be confusing.  In this context, for causation to be satisfied, the "crime" must actually be caused by the "criminal" and his Mens and Actus-basically IF without the "criminal's" intervention, the crime would not have occurred-then causation is satisfied.

In particular, Murder is described as "the unlawful killing, with malicec aforethought, of another human being".  This means Murder's particular elements (the particular things that comprise the crime of murder, as opposed to the crime of jaywalking, etc) are as follows:
-Unlawful : basically, its not Self-Defense, or War
-Killing : the victim is dead,, otherwise I suppose you'd be dealing with assault and so forth
-With Malice Aforethought : in other words, the accused didn't kill someone by accident, or so quickly that it was a reflex, etc
-of Human Being:  This means, for those of you, and we KNOW you ARE out there-who think that certain ethnicities aren't human beings, THEY MOST DEFINATELY ARE.

In case the Tomkinsville Grand Jury members are capable of reading, here's why Mr. Pantaleo should have been CONVICTED of Murder:

1.  His actions satisfy the Actus Rheus of Murder, the killing, because he was the one "applying" the "chokehold", or just plain CHOKING, Eric Garner.

2.  He satisfies the Mens Rheus, or had Malice Aforethought, because he plainly heard Eric Garner, ELEVEN (11) TIMES say "I can't breathe", and he did NOT release Mr Garner.  Nor his continued choking necessary to "defend himself", as there were FOUR (4) other officers immediately present, Mr. Garner was plainly no longer ANY kind of threat as he was face was down, on the pavement-AND Mr. Pantleo was engaging in an Illegal act applying the chokehold, as it is prohibited by the law enforcement division he is employed by. (this means the apparently completely incompetent prosecutor could also have employed some type of "per se" argument)

3. Since all this happened at the same time, it's easil proven that Mr. Pantaleo also satisfies the Causation element, of Murder because Eric Garner was a human being,  and the video clearly shows that Mr. Pantaleo's choking caused Mr. Garner to be unable to breathe, and, indeed, the official cause of death (notably) Homicide by asphyxiation CLEARLY proves it.

Ultimately, this simple and easy argument is crystal clear, correct, and obviously so.  We, as citizens and human beings, are resultingly left to ask: "Why wasn't is successful then?"  Why didn't the prosecutor resign in anger?  Was he so interconnected and involved with law enforcement as he works side-by-side with them every single day...that he was unable to adequately assert a simple argument?  Are we employing incompetent law enforcement?  Does the acquittal mean that the law DOES NOT apply to law enforcement? Or are black men committing misdemeanors no longer human beings?  Is racism STILL so prevalent in the USA as to be incorporated into law enforcement as a matter of course?

I think, if nothing else, the legacy of Eric Garner-and too, too many others-is to define and elevate the importance of those questions and others.  If we let them drop, or accept the answers this acquittal (and the recent one in Ferguson) leave us with:  That law enforcement is not subject to the rule of law; That ACCUSED Black misdemeanor criminals are not human beings; That the courts are not able, or, worse, unwilling, to enforce the law against their own officers; etcetera and on and on..then we are no better than the members of that grand jury, the incompetent or unwilling court, or the supportive and corrupt law enforcement in that community.

I sincerely and honestly hope that no one who reads this is capable of that.



-x

" The "Chokehold" is a tactic banned by the New York City Police Department (NYPD).^[9][10] Garner was initially approached by Officer Justin Damico on suspicion of selling “loosies”, single cigarettes from packs without tax stamps.^[11] After Garner expressed to the police that he was tired of being harassed and that he was not selling cigarettes, officers made the move to arrest Garner. Officer Daniel Pantaleo, also on scene, put his arms around the much taller Garner's neck, applying an apparent chokehold shown in a widely viewed video recording of the event. While lying face-down on the sidewalk surrounded by four officers, Garner is heard to repeat numerous times, "I can't breathe".^[2] Garner was pronounced dead approximately one hour later at the hospital"
--Published December 3, 2014, Wikipedia News feed