![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
.... did you know Cristopher has a blog? I thought you might be interested.
Guys? get a room. Seriously. There have got to be better places to neck than Starbucks. I know you're young, and you think the world revolves around you, and that this is *twue wove*, but really, take it somewhere else. I'd get up and leave, except I was here first, and I'm stubborn that way.
And again, I'm an equal opportunity prude. I'd be telling you the same thing if you were a straight couple.
And again, I'm an equal opportunity prude. I'd be telling you the same thing if you were a straight couple.
It's one life
And there's no return
And no deposit
One life
So it's time to open up your closet
"I Am What I Am," Jerry Herman, from La Cage Aux Folles
I'm writing a book. Really. It's silly... but I'm doing it anyway. I have not been talking about it to anyone, except for a few people, because I was afraid of what would happen if I failed to finish, or if it didn't get published.
Which is pretty likely -- the not publishing part, that is. It's a trivia book. I'm not sure what the market is for these things. But I am going to finish it. I am compelled to do so.
I started telling more people lately sort of by accident, because I work at the local Starbucks,, and people keep asking me what I'm doing sitting there surrounded by reference books. I may be embarrassed, but not so much that I'd lie to people.
I expect it to take me another year, conservatively, to finish. The difference between something like what I'm doing and a novel is that I actually have to research things. Which means hours online and in the library. And, as I said, in Starbucks: it's removed from house, and the one closest to my house does not have wireless, so I can work from reference works without being tempted to waste time websurfing. Because, compulsion or no, there are days when nothing in the world looks interesting.
So here goes. We'll see what we will see.
And there's no return
And no deposit
One life
So it's time to open up your closet
"I Am What I Am," Jerry Herman, from La Cage Aux Folles
I'm writing a book. Really. It's silly... but I'm doing it anyway. I have not been talking about it to anyone, except for a few people, because I was afraid of what would happen if I failed to finish, or if it didn't get published.
Which is pretty likely -- the not publishing part, that is. It's a trivia book. I'm not sure what the market is for these things. But I am going to finish it. I am compelled to do so.
I started telling more people lately sort of by accident, because I work at the local Starbucks,, and people keep asking me what I'm doing sitting there surrounded by reference books. I may be embarrassed, but not so much that I'd lie to people.
I expect it to take me another year, conservatively, to finish. The difference between something like what I'm doing and a novel is that I actually have to research things. Which means hours online and in the library. And, as I said, in Starbucks: it's removed from house, and the one closest to my house does not have wireless, so I can work from reference works without being tempted to waste time websurfing. Because, compulsion or no, there are days when nothing in the world looks interesting.
So here goes. We'll see what we will see.
[ N. B. All typographical errors are from the original source and therefore have not been corrected ]
"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.
.....
But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that an men are created equal ..." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we viii be. We we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremist for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime---the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jeans Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists."
Martin Luther King, Letter from Birmingham Jail.
Thanks to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
jmhm for the link.
"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.
.....
But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that an men are created equal ..." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we viii be. We we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremist for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime---the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jeans Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists."
Martin Luther King, Letter from Birmingham Jail.
Thanks to
jmhm for the link.[In my earlier post, I linked to a Blogger post I had made. Blogger is being obnoxious, so I am copying it here.]
( Why I write. )
( Why I write. )
Tags:
Adventus has a really good post about the law, and the protection it affords us. It's a nice accompaniment to pecunium's post from a while back about habeas corpus.
At the end, RMJ points out "The Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that Guantanamo detainees are entitled to hearings. In 2006, those same detainees are still on hunger strikes to protest their incarceration, and are being treated in brutal and inhumane ways, in violation of international law as well as U.S. law. And yet that treatment continues."
This is true -- every time the SCOTUS has told the Administration the have to do something, they have stonewalled, and gone back to court to argue over what it really means, anything rather than provide hearings for these people. And I'm beginning to wonder...
What do we do if, when the cases finally reach the SCOTUS the second time around, and the court unequivocally says you have to provide hearings and these are what they are to look like and this is when they have to happen... what if the Administration flat out refuses?
Of course, by virtue of stonewalling, they will have waited until they could change the composition of the court, so it probably won't happen. That's why Alito matters so much: O'Connor wrote the majority in Hamdan which required the Administration to provide the detainees with due process.
But still, what happens when they finally push things too far, and the Court stands up and says, "No more"? What then?
pecunium's post from a while back about habeas corpus.At the end, RMJ points out "The Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that Guantanamo detainees are entitled to hearings. In 2006, those same detainees are still on hunger strikes to protest their incarceration, and are being treated in brutal and inhumane ways, in violation of international law as well as U.S. law. And yet that treatment continues."
This is true -- every time the SCOTUS has told the Administration the have to do something, they have stonewalled, and gone back to court to argue over what it really means, anything rather than provide hearings for these people. And I'm beginning to wonder...
What do we do if, when the cases finally reach the SCOTUS the second time around, and the court unequivocally says you have to provide hearings and these are what they are to look like and this is when they have to happen... what if the Administration flat out refuses?
Of course, by virtue of stonewalling, they will have waited until they could change the composition of the court, so it probably won't happen. That's why Alito matters so much: O'Connor wrote the majority in Hamdan which required the Administration to provide the detainees with due process.
But still, what happens when they finally push things too far, and the Court stands up and says, "No more"? What then?
.