Friendships

I have a theory that when it comes to friends, there are two types of people in the world...those who need and desire frequent contact with their friends and those who are happy to get together whenever life allows a few moments of pleasure. The second kind of people are the ones who can call an old friend they haven't seen in 20 years and suddenly they're talking like they saw each other only yesterday. People who have the first kind of friend personality have a very hard time understanding people who have the second kind. I have a good friend who is type 1. Her husband is type 2 and she has a hard time with his attitude towards friends. Luckily, my husband and I are both type 2. We have a lot of good friends all over the world, but seeing them frequently isn't an issue for us. Maybe once or twice a year we'll contact most of them and talk for a bit (some more often, some less)...and know that if life ever brings us near them again, we'll pick up right where we left off. My friend who is type 1 thinks that the issue is male vs female, but I don't think so. I'm still studying the issue, trying to determine what makes one person need frequent contact while another is just as happy to speak every once in a while. Perhaps it relates to personality types, maybe extroverts need more stimulation from friendships. I'm not sure.

Government wins conviction against civil rights lawyer Lynne Stewart, 10 Feb 05

Government wins conviction against civil rights lawyer Lynne Stewart, 10 Feb 05




I like hearing both sides of an issue. I sometimes despair of the shape of civil rights in our country. BUT, this is not a lawsuit about civil rights, no matter who tries to say it is. When I read this page, I came away wondering why (and how) on earth a lawyer who is reportedly great at handling cases, would get herself locked up. This site tries to make her out as some kind of martyr. There are martyrs in the US right now, people who have been locked up just because they fit a description and not because they haven't broken any laws. I've read cases about several of them. Many are doctors, pursued so that the "War on Drugs" will look like it's being won. Others are editors, computer experts, etc. Nearly always you can find an internet page about them, proclaiming FREE (insert name here). Many times its legitimate. Many other times it's not. This is one of those times.

Here is the quote from the page:
"We have very sad news. Lynne Stewart was found guilty on all counts Thursday February 10. All defendants in the case were found guilty on all counts. We must continue our fight to FREE LYNNE STEWART!

Lynne told reporters: 'We are not going to give up,' a tearful Stewart said outside court. 'We're going to fight on. This is the beginning of a larger struggle.

I know I committed no crime. I know what I did was right….I see myself as a symbol of what people rail against when they say that civil liberties are eroded,' she said, her voice breaking with emotion. 'We don't live in the same America we lived in even three or four years ago.

'We will all wake up one morning to hear someone say guilty and be placed in jail," she said. "I hope this verdict will be a wake-up call to all the citizens of this great country that you can't lock up the lawyers. You can't tell the lawyers how to do their jobs.'"

Sounds interesting, doesn't it? The problem is that there is WAY too much information left out. What did she do? What was she charged with? Why are we left to sort out the truth if we are supposed to believe that she is innocent?

A quick search brings up an article in the Washington Post. "She was found guilty of trying to cover up secret conversations between Rahman and his followers and violating federal regulations by publicly announcing in 2000 that the cleric had withdrawn his support for a cease-fire between the Egyptian government and the Islamic Group -- a fundamentalist organization that carried out terrorist attacks on tourists and police officers." I'm sorry, I don't care if you're a lawyer or a judge or a policeman or a person off the street or even the President, being an American citizen carries with it the responsibility of obeying the laws of the land. And flaunting the law can lead to punishment.

" "We all believed it was our role to keep him on the world stage," Stewart told The Washington Post last year. "His word matters. And he wouldn't be the first man accused of terrorism who is later released from prison when times change."

This strategy, and Stewart's decision to smuggle out the sheik's message advocating the end of the cease-fire, troubled legal ethicists from both ends of the political spectrum.

Steven Lubet, director of Northwestern University's program on advocacy and professionalism, dismissed much of Stewart's defense. "There is nothing about 'vigorous defense' that requires a lawyer to facilitate her client's political goals," he said in a statement. "This case has nothing to do with zealous defense."

Stephen Gillers, a professor of legal ethics at New York University, added that Stewart comes from a long tradition of radical defense lawyers who stop at little in defense of their clients. But he noted that few go so far as Stewart.

"I don't think most lawyers would take these risks,' he said. 'Her conduct, when she crossed the line, was bold.'"

Bush picks Roberts to succeed Rehnquist - Yahoo! News

Bush picks Roberts to succeed Rehnquist - Yahoo! News

I am really upset right now. I've been a republican for years. When I was in college, I stood outside the voting booths and handed out cards for Jesse Helms and Charles Taylor. I had met and talked with both of them and their opponents and were convinced that they were the right ones for the job.

I have never been a straight party voter, I'd rather know about someone before they get my vote. But lately, I'm really getting frustrated with our system.

Historically in America, unless you are part of the main parties, you won't get elected. The problem that I've seen, particularly lately, is that both the Republican and Democratic parties have their own agendas...and those agendas aren'twhat most of the American people want (at least the hopes of the various people I've talked to). What I've seen is that when most of us talk in a nonthreatening setting, our political views have a lot in common with each other, even if we disagree in some areas. But our political parties seem to be based more on the differences instead of the similiarities.

What does this have to do with the website that I thumbed? Not a lot. I'm just getting frustrated at the way our government is going. I voted for Bush and I'd probably do it again if I were given the same two choices. I'm from NC and I wouldn't vote for John Edwards. I think it's rather telling that even given the opportunity to have someone from NC in the White House, NC still voted predominantly for Bush. But choosing between two options on either end of a scale isn't always the best way to choose. Perhaps it's time for a new party in the US, one that truely is a party of the people, for the people, and by the people.

And now I'll actually talk about the page and what brought all this on....Today President Bush said that Roberts is his choice for Chief Justice. Roberts, the canidate that both Republicans and Democrats have complained about. Even Ann Coulter (a very vocal Republican writer) has complained about him.

As the South recovers from Katrina and the rest of us do what we can to help and wait to see what changes the future will bring, Bush could have taken a step that would have shown the world that racism is becoming a thing of the past in the US, that equal rights are alive and active by naming Clarence Thomas to the role of Chief Justice. Justice Thomas has the credientals, he's proven as a Justice, and he has a record that Bush should like. Naming Thomas as Chief Justice would be good for the Nation, and a good move politically for both Bush and the Republican party.

Instead, Bush's move has me shaking my head, wondering "What was he thinking?" I've been against believing that Bush had a political agenda. I don't want to believe it, honestly. But this move really makes no sense otherwise.

O'Reilly Network: Free Culture: Lawrence Lessig Keynote from OSCON 2002

O'Reilly Network: Free Culture: Lawrence Lessig Keynote from OSCON 2002

Free Culture
Lawrence Lessig Keynote from OSCON 2002
by Lawrence Lessig
08/15/2002

Editor's Note: In his address before a packed house at the Open Source Convention, Lawrence Lessig challenges the audience to get more involved in the political process. Lawrence, a tireless advocate for open source, is a professor of law at Stanford Law School and the founder of the school's Center for Internet and Society. He is also the author of the best-selling book Code, and Other Laws of Cyberspace. Here is the complete transcript of Lawrence's keynote presentation made on July 24, 2002.

Lawrence Lessig: I have been doing this for about two years--more than 100 of these gigs. This is about the last one. One more and it's over for me. So I figured I wanted to write a song to end it. But then I realized I don't sing and I can't write music. But I came up with the refrain, at least, right? This captures the point. If you understand this refrain, you're gonna' understand everything I want to say to you today. It has four parts:

*

Creativity and innovation always builds on the past.
*

The past always tries to control the creativity that builds upon it.
*

Free societies enable the future by limiting this power of the past.
*

Ours is less and less a free society.

In 1774, free culture was born. In a case called Donaldson v. Beckett in the House of Lords in England, free culture was made because copyright was stopped. In 1710, the statute had said that copyright should be for a limited term of just 14 years. But in the 1740s, when Scottish publishers started reprinting classics (you gotta' love the Scots), the London publishers said "Stop!" They said, "Copyright is forever!" Sonny Bono said "Copyright should be forever minus a day," but the London publishers said "Copyright is forever."

These publishers, people whom Milton referred to as old patentees and monopolizers in the trade of book selling, men who do not labor in an honest profession (except Tim here), to [them] learning is indebted. These publishers demanded a common-law copyright that would be forever. In 1769, in a case called Miller v. Taylor, they won their claim, but just five years later, in Donaldson, Miller was reversed, and for the first time in history, the works of Shakespeare were freed, freed from the control of a monopoly of publishers. Freed culture was the result of that case.

Remember the refrain. I would sing it, but you wouldn't want me to. OK. Well, by the end we'll see.