The Loveshade Family Blog

"GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba - The Yemeni man convicted at the first Guantanamo war crimes trial will be eligible for release in less than five months after receiving a light sentence from a jury made up of U.S. military officers.

The victory for Salim Hamdan, a former driver for Osama bin Laden, was a rebuke to military prosecutors who portrayed him as a hardened al-Qaida warrior and sought a sentence of 30 years to life in prison."

Rightly or wrongly, "Guantanamo Bay" has become synonymous with prisoner abuse and humiliation.  The Bush Administration backs ill treatment and even torture (see http://loveshade.org/blog/2008/03/waterboarding_president_bush_f.html) of people who are legally innocent.  This decision, that Hamdan got a 5 1/2 sentence after already serving over five years, must be a blow to the administration.

We can hope, as the American Political climate is headed for major changes, that the illusive and sometimes illusionary concept called "justice" can move beyond revenge and torturing the legally innocent.  We hope.

See the article by Mike Melia, Associated Press writer, at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/guantanamo_bin_laden_s_driver

Posted by The Loveshade Family at 12:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBacks (0)

Allowing homosexuals and bisexuals in the United States military is being examined by Congress for the first time in 15 years.

When Bill Clinton became U.S. president about 16 years ago, one of the first things he wanted to do was to stop the military from discriminating against bisexuals, gays and lesbians.  Under policy at that time, the Pentagon could and did ask recruits their sexual orientation.  This was due to what would now be called homophobia--people were afraid that gays would proposition, sexually molest or even rape them.  (Two or three decades ago, many Americans believed that most sexual molesters were homosexual).

Congress wouldn't go along with Clinton's proposal, but instead made a compromise.  This became known as the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.  If you were lesbian, bisexual or gay, you were supposed to keep your mouth shut about it.  In turn, the Pentagon wouldn't ask you what genitalia you preferred.

It was an odd policy to begin with--it was against the rules for you to have a "non-normal" sexual preference, but it was OK as long as no one found out about it.  Something of an "It's OK as long as you don't get caught" policy.

But the military establishment caught people anyway.  While the Pentagon stopped asking directly, they still investigated.  The number of people kicked out due to their sexual orientation only lessened by about 10 percent, according to Randy Shilts' 1993 book Conduct Unbecoming: Gays & Lesbians in the U.S. Military.

But Congress is now holding a hearing on the policy with what is ironic timing.  Senator Sam Nunn, who was a co-creator of the policy, is being seriously considered as the vice presidential running mate for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who’s had a lot of support from homosexuals.

So what think?  What affect could having Nunn as a running mate have on Obama's campaign?  And should the military be allowed to keep people out due to their sexual orientation?  Is a policy that makes those who want to serve in the military hide their homosexuality or bisexuality fair?

(Alden Loveshade contributed to this)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080723/us_time/revisitingdontaskdonttell

Posted by Reverend Loveshade at 03:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (20) | TrackBacks (0)

(Alden Loveshade is a freelance writer who became involved in a political protest while vacationing in Boulder, Colorado, some time before JonBenét Ramsey (sometimes spelled JonBenet Ramsey) was reported missing.  Alden has been following the Ramsey case ever since.)

Yes, the story about the parents of JonBenét Ramsey being cleared--again--came out a few days ago.  This time, it was "touch" evidence, DNA that was left on the girl's panties that didn't fit anyone in the family.  Sadly, mother Patsy Ramsey didn't live to see this, but her husband John and much of the rest of the family did--after living under the horror of suspicion for almost 12 years.

So why am I writing about it now and not a few days ago?

 I hesitated doing an entry at all, as I largely said what I wanted to say in a previous post (http://loveshade.org/blog/2006/08/jon_benet_ramsey_murder_case_h.html)

The reason I posted is this:

Continue reading "JonBenét Ramsey Parents Cleared--Again. Who's Next?" »

Posted by Alden Loveshade at 12:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (24) | TrackBacks (0)

Hey, everyone,

As an artist myself, I fully understand the need to protect copyrights. They're really the only way that a small free-lancer like myself could survive.

But the Viacom suit against Google/YouTube sounds pretty scary. I'm not sure Viacom really has the privacy of users in mind considering that a while back a bunch of Napster users got slapped with hefty bills or face lawsuits.

And we've already seen that privacy in this country for the past seven years has been badly eroded in favor of the bottom line.

And that privacy has been getting stripped away for much longer than that.

As for copyrights, Viacom, owner of MTV and VH1, has even gone so far as to grab the rights to videos that were made years and even decades before MTV was even a germ of an idea.

So be careful if you go to YouTube, okay?

Unless you're one of those folks who knows how to remain anonymous on the Web (which I'm not.)

See more at http://news.yahoo.com/s/cnet/20080703/tc_cnet/830110784399835117 and http://www.reuters.com/article/technology-media-telco-SP/idUSWEN535120070313

Posted by Danacasso at 07:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (24) | TrackBacks (0)

I heard from Lorien that same-sex couples can now get legally married in California.  I knew the California Supreme Court had ruled that restricting marriage to the opposite sex was unconstitutional on the state level on May 15, but it took until 5:01 p.m. today (June 16) for that decision to stand.  (for a discussion of the May 15 decision, see http://loveshade.org/blog/2008/05/california_may_accept_marriage.html)

California is the second state to do this, and several couples have gotten married there already.

Of course there's protests, calls for changing the law, etc.  There's a California measure coming up for vote in a few months that would specifically ban same-sex marriage.  And because U. S. states recognize marriage as defined by other U. S. states, it puts anti-gay-marriage states in something of a bind.  This will probably beef up the idea of amending the U. S. Constitution to a "one-man, one-woman" marriage amendment.  My friend Alden claims that marriage in the U. S. has never been controlled by the federal government, and this would put even more power in the hands of big wigs in Washington.

So what think?  Should same-sex marriage be legal?  Should the federal government be able to control marriage?  For that matter, should the state government be able to control marriage?  And what about governments of other countries?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080617/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

(members of The Loveshade Family contributed to this report)

Posted by Reverend Loveshade at 06:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (20) | TrackBacks (0)

The International Astronomical Union (Motto: All Astronomers Must Bow to Us!) has announced a new term for dwarf planets such as Pluto and Eris: plutoid.  (See http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20080611/sc_space/plutonowcalledaplutoid).  This is apparently an attempt to reach some consensus over the controversy created when Eris was found to be bigger than Pluto, and both were declared dwarf planets.

In case you missed last week's episode, Discordians had a big hand in all this.  On August 11, 2005, Professor Mu-Chao (then known as Prince Mu-Chao) suggested a Jake to get Planet X named Eris.  Several of us did the jake, and on September 13, 2006, it was officially named just that (technically, it was 136199 Eris--because it was a dwarf planet, they had to stick a big number on it). This became known as The Jake That Changed a World (see the original post at http://23ae.com/index.asp?post=208 and the results at http://discordia.loveshade.org/ek-sen-trik-kuh/planeteris.html .  Unfortunately, due to a server crash or some such a year or so ago, a great number of posts on the jake were lost.)

What I want to know is, why did they decide these mini worlds should be called plutoids, and not eristoids?

Posted by Reverend Loveshade at 06:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBacks (0)

Thankfully, the Texas Supreme Court has crawled out of its Dark Ages hole for a moment to decide that ripping children away from their loving parents may not be a great idea. For a brief moment, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is seeing a brief ray of hope that America may actually, occasionally, value freedom of religion.

Now even Child Protective Services (motto: "We can take children away from anybody") has agreed to actually follow the law for once, and are giving the children back. There's nothing in the agreement that says fathers have to stay away, although the parents are required to take parenting classes (which we think every high schooler should take). But, perhaps worst of all, they have to stay in Texas.

This whole case raises several issues. First, why is polygamy illegal? It's supported in Christian, Jewish and Islamic tradition (try actually reading the Bible and Torah and the Qur’an). And why do the headlines continually speak of the "polygamist group?" That's one part of their belief system, not the defining part. Why don't we called Baptists the "monogamist group?"

Second, why do we insist people aren't adults until they turn 18? Is there some adulthood fairy who magically transforms them at midnight? Consider that Muhammad, father of Islam, had a 12-year-old wife, and Joseph, who early Christian writers said was about 60, married Mary when she was somewhere between 12 and 16. Nowhere does Christian or Jewish scripture specify an age for adulthood or a minimum age for marriage.

People are also upset by arranged marriages. This was the standard in Christian, Jewish, Islamic and many Eastern traditions for millennia. The marriage success rate was generally very high, with families getting together who had similar religious and economic backgrounds.

Am I saying I personally agree with everything this church teaches and practices?  Am I ready to join?  No.  Even though, had all the restrictions that CPS and the American Government want to apply been followed several years ago, I would never have been born.  Of course, that would have made some of you very happy.

What I am asking is this: Where does America get off persecuting people for practicing their religion and loving each other?

See story at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080530/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat

Posted by Reverend Loveshade at 08:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (22) | TrackBacks (0)