On Getting Re-Tweeted by the Denver Police.

Occupy Wall Street: #OccupyDenver Gains Momentum In Large Weekend Rally, Endorses American Indian Movement Proposal (PHOTOS)

First Posted: 10/10/11 10:45 AM ET Updated: 10/10/11 11:27 AM ET

The Occupy Denver movement is gaining momentum. Even as the weather turned cold and rainy this weekend, a diverse group of approximately 1000 protesters gathered at the state Capitol Building and marched peacefully to the Federal Reserve at the 16th Street Mall on Saturday — the largest group gathered since the first rally more than two weeks ago.
The Denver Police Department were there on Saturday, but there were no arrests, Fox31 reports. The DPD were so accommodating to Occupy Denver that protesters even tweeted thanks to the police:
@ KatieMaryBarry @DenverPolice have been amazingly accommodating. So much gratitude for their help today at #OccupyDenver. Thanks guys!
Proud of the peaceful marches, DPD tweeted their own pat on the back:
@ DenverPolice : THE RIGHT STUFF: “Occupy Wall St” marchers praise DPD. “They did a fantastic job of keeping people safe – they were clearly there to help”
The momentum began Friday night when hip-hop artist Lupe Fiasco stopped by the Occupy Denver camp donating tents, tarps, propane and other winter supplies, according to the Occupy Denver Facebook page. Fiasco was passing through Denver, playing a show at the Fillmore Auditorium, just a half mile from Occupy Denver’s campsite at the state Capitol.
Donations of food and other supplies kept the campsite growing all weekend. 9News reports that Occupy Denver has a large working kitchen now feeding those involved for free. Patrick Mardsen, a professional cook, said to 9News that a steady supply of food and supplies are being brought in by local restaurants, but mostly from individuals in support of the protesters.
Sunday night also brought a big development for Occupy Denver as they joined forces with the Colorado branch of the American Indian Movement (AIM) — according to the Occupy Denver Facebook page, the occupiers unanimously endorsed ten AIM demands, which can be read in full here.
The protesters have yet to make any official public demands, but it’s not that they don’t have any, rather they are simply weighing all ideas brought forth by those involved in the movement. Brett Starr, a Denver organizer said this to HuffPost about the work-in-progress demands:

There has not been a specific demand(s) laid out yet. The media would like to squeeze one out of us, but we are not going to give them one until we come to a final massive democratic decisions on what that demand(s) should be.

Starr also said that any organizer can go to Coup Media Group’s website and vote on the proposed demands being laid out.
Occupy Denver is not alone in Colorado either, other occupations have broken out all over the state over the last two weeks. There are now protesters organizing in BoulderPuebloGreeleyColorado Springs and Fort Collins.

On Smoking Cessation

I’m not proud of this, but I’m not embarrassed by it either. It is what it is. They’re my decisions and I own each and every one of them, for better or worse.
I was fifteen when I smoked my first cigarette. I was really bad at it. I used to snap them in half with my nervous, clenching fingers. 
I’ve been an on-again-off-again smoker for the past eight years. Sometimes I am a heavy smoker, sometimes I’m a non-smoker, sometimes I’m an ex smoker. But I’m still a smoker. 
Every time I put on perfume, I’m reminded of what K’s mom once said to us: “Perfume hides a multitude of sins.” I can’t smell the Cool Water perfume I loved so much without thinking of those days when we used to sneak around and try to pretend we weren’t smokers. 
This gas station used to sell me cigarettes. The lady at the counter would tell me I was beautiful and give me chocolates. I really enjoyed the slight ego boost. 
I met my roommate in college by asking her if I could smoke with them. I’m grateful for that. Without her, college wouldn’t have been the same at all. 
I quit during the cancer scare in college. I quit hard. I gave up a lot of things so it would go away, and cigarettes were of course the first. I stuck with it. I was doing really well, for many many months, until the night I came home to find my laptop missing. I went to 7-11 and smoked an entire pack of Marlboros while sitting in the kitchen in my apartment.
I always told myself I’d quit for real when I graduated from college. And I did. 
Then I went to South Africa. There’s no way to escape the cigarette smoke there. People smoke in their beds, in their living rooms, over tea, while dancing at the club. 
I’m not exactly a chimney, but I really enjoy them while I’m drinking. 
I’ve been really realizing that I need to stop sooner rather than later. I obviously don’t want to be a woman smoker (eek, this woman business is complicated). I don’t want to be a mom who sneaks cigs behind the garage when the kids are napping (I’m sure they exist?). 
I’m not dating/dating (whatever) a boy/man-thing [haha, I would seriously love to see his face if he knew I was referring to him as a boy/man-thing] who really hates smoking. He’s nice because he’s a good reason to really quit. Last night, he kissed me and then pulled away and said, “You’ve been smoking, haven’t you?”

Maybe. (I’d had one like four hours earlier because I thought I wasn’t going to see him and could get away with it.) I didn’t lie to him. 

And I know that you need to “quit for yourself” but at the same time, I usually need a good push. It’s not that I fiend, it’s just that they feel so nice. Having never smoked, you might not understand. But it’s the same feeling as sinking into a hot bath after a long day. It’s like coming home to fresh melted cookies. It’s like waking up in someone’s arms. Actually, all of those things are better than smoking. 
So I’m going to have to learn how to live without them. And I will. Not for him, but for me. 
Anyway, this article reminded me of it and made me want to blog about it.

From ThoughtCatalog.com:

When It’s Good To Give Up

SEP. 30, 2011

By STEPHANIE GEORGOPULOS

I started smoking when I was 14. I used to say things like, “I’ll quit when I’m pregnant,” as though that was an actual plan, as though I could count on my addiction floundering just because there happened to be two of me growing instead of one. I made similar excuses over the course of my ten-year love affair with nicotine, none of which made logical sense but all of which allowed me to poison myself on an hourly basis without remorse. I wanted to poison myself.

But then, much to the shock of just about everyone who knows me, I quit. I didn’t chew gum or feed nicotine through my pores, I just abandoned the one constant in my life, the one companion I’d had for the past decade. The one-year anniversary of my quit date was this week. I don’t think I’ll go back.

It’s true that nicotine is addictive, it affects your mood, it changes the way you make decisions. It’s easy to point out that cigarettes are ‘the bad guy,’ the way they empty your wallet and yellow your fingertips. This is a negative habit that most people will commend you for giving up.

But we could stand to give up more often. Maybe there are no instructional pamphlets or illustrative posters to point out each and every one of the things we need to rid ourselves of, but there they are – lurking in the shadows of our subconscious. They are the people who make us feel like our lungs are in a vice whenever we see them. The humanization of our bad habits, walking and breathing and telling bad jokes.

Some people just make you feel bad. The way you can wake up smelling like some half-rate casino and think to yourself I don’t want to do this anymore, you can feel that way about people, and the worst part is that you can’t extinguish them, you can’t smother their head into an ashtray or make them someone else’s problem.

It’s in our nature to not want to give up, especially not on people; fragile, harmless people – we all just mean well, don’t we? Don’t we all just want to be happy? Don’t the things we do to achieve that happiness, the things that tear us apart from one another – aren’t those the things that make us similar? Aren’t people inherently good? Maybe. But what does it matter if that goodness is not reserved for you? What if all you extract from a person is negativity? How do we justify allowing ourselves to feel badly because someone may or may not be redeemable?

We don’t always recognize when someone is bad for us, but sometimes we do. Sometimes we become all-consumed by the disgust that’s bred from this idea that we allow hate to affect us so deeply. People create art because of it. It can drive us; it can turn us into something we’re not. And even though it’s ugly, it’s addictive. We become addicted to toxicity.

And in that case, it’s good to give up. It’s good to fight against the cancer growing inside of us by neglecting to feed it. We have to starve it into submission, forgo the efforts that help it grow. The brooding and the anguish, bury it. Extinguish whatever it is that’s making us feel badly and worry about ourselves. We need to quit allowing something that’s decidedly negative to drive our actions, our moods. We need to quit poisoning ourselves with vitriol.

The thing is, there are people who don’t make us feel terrible. There are people who listen to us and care for us and make us smile. They loosen the vice around our lungs and help us breathe. They are the fresh air. They alight us in ways a carcinogenic never will. Whatever energy we devote to a toxic situation, we take away from the people who deserve it – the people whose goodness doesn’t have to be assumed; their goodness is just there, in plain sight. They are worth quitting for.

Views On Parenthood (from 23)

I’m wholeheartedly certain that when I’m 33 and I read this post, I’ll have a good laugh.

I think it might have something to do with being adopted, but I crave the opportunity to someday create new life. I want to feel it growing inside me, to see my facial expressions replicated in my offspring, to watch my features merge with someone else’s and become an entirely unique human being. I love the idea of nature vs. nurture. My mom used to say that when I was little, I’d say something and she’d turn around expecting my birth mom to be standing there, because I sounded so much like her.

However, as I get older, I’m less certain of this drive to procreate. Maybe it’s the fact that I might not have health insurance after I turn 26. Maybe it’s the fact that we might be living in the end times (I’m just being facetious, mostly). Maybe it’s because I’m totally afraid I’ll mess up my kids. Maybe it’s the fact that I’ve realized that eventually they’re not babies anymore. And then they get emotionally complex and smelly. Ugh. Puberty. 
I once had a deal with an ex-boyfriend that I’d take them from birth to age 4. He’d take them from 5 to 18. I really like this plan. 
Regardless, I’m just not sure it’s worth it. Kids are expensive. They’re annoying. They’re ungrateful. But on the other hand, they’re so cute. They wear little shoes. (It’s the shoes that get me every time. Adorable.) The looks on their faces when they discover something new are precious. Their giggles are universally uplifting. 
However, I think that financial drain aside, it might be one of the most beautiful things I’ll ever do (if my eventual marriage can sustain the blow that is the stress of child-rearing). 
It really hit me when I went to the Barney! Live show with my favorite family (I realize this is on the internet, so it’s entirely public, but how embarrassing is it that I missed Slightly Stoopid and Shwayze to see Barney?). The girls were so happy, and somewhere inside my cold, dark, hardened heart, something cracked. I was filled with this strange sense of inner warmth. 
The mom told me that experiencing things with them for the first time is three times what it is to discover it yourself and that parenthood is all about gathering these little moments. 
I don’t disagree. 
Apparently the return on investment as far as emotions and experiences go is incredibly high. 
Mom always says that the steps to child-preparedness are thus:
1. Get a plant. 
2. If you don’t kill the plant, get an animal. 
3. If you don’t kill the animal, you can get a kid. 
I had a bamboo plant once, if that counts. 
And Carlos, despite probably having used up 8 of his lives, is a very happy cat. An expensive, spoiled, rude, but adorable cat. 
I’ve got years before I’ll have to worry about the proper techniques for parenting, but to be honest, I’m not that scared. 
Or maybe I am. 
The only thing I worry about is losing me. I don’t want to lose my life to babies. I want to be fun. I just want to dance. I don’t want to lose the things I’m passionate about. I don’t want to give up everything to raise children. Did you know that kids who are raised in houses with two working parents are more resourceful and resilient? So that’s reason to believe that it’ll all work out.

I taught one of the twins how to swing the other day. She knew the basic pumping motions, but I showed her how to lean back and lean in and pretty soon she was flying above my head. I was filled with anxiety (what if she falls? is she okay?) but this wonderful sense of accomplishment (look at how happy she looks! she’s really doing it!). If that’s what parenthood is all about, I’ll take it.

On Fertility Rates in the US…

And yet they still want to stop providing family-planning services to our citizens? I vote free birth control for everyone! More sexual and health education! More paid paternity leave! 


At the very least, let’s educate our citizens about what having a child really means, not just from a “don’t-have-sex-because-Jesus-won’t-like-it” standpoint, but from a “kids-cost-way-more-money-than-you’d-think” standpoint. Let’s put the economics of it into focus and hope that maybe that will hit home with some of our impressionable young people. 

Also, we need to be more supportive of our working parents. We can’t all be the Cosbys and magically have great careers yet be home in time for dinner. Let’s realize that it’s a sacrifice and one that we should support – for the future of our country. Paid maternity leave. Better daycare options. Safe places to pump breast milk at work. 

As a society, we need to step it up. Granted, we don’t want everyone having kids just because they can, but we need to better educate prospective parents about their options. 

Knocked Up and Knocked Down

Why America’s widening fertility class divide is a problem.

Pregnant woman holding crying girl while doing chores.Are we experiencing a national fertility crisis?Since the average American woman has 2.1 children, you might think we aren’t experiencing a national fertility crisis. Unlike some European countries whose futures are threatened by low birth rates, Americans, on average, produce just the right number of future workers, soldiers, and taxpayers to keep our society humming. Our families are also, on average, comfortably smaller than those in some developing countries, where high birthrates help keep women and children severely impoverished. But here’s the problem: Because the American fertility rate is an average, it obscures the fact that our country is actually more like two countries, which are now experiencing two different, serious crises.
You hear about the “haves” versus the “have-nots,” but not so much about the “have-one-or-nones” versus the “have-a-fews.” This, though, is how you might characterize the stark and growing fertility class divide in the United States. Two new studies bring the contrasting reproductive profiles of rich and poor women into sharp relief. One, from the Guttmacher Institute, shows that the rates of unplanned pregnancies and births among poor women now dwarf the fertility rates of wealthier women, and finds that the gap between the two groups has widened significantly over the past five years. The other, by the Center for Work-Life Policy, documents rates of childlessness among corporate professional women that are higher than the childlessness rates of some European countries experiencing fertility crises.
Childlessness has increased across most demographic groups but is still highest among professionals. Indeed, according to an analysis of census data conducted by the Pew Research Center, about one quarter of all women with bachelor’s degrees and higher in the United States wind up childless. (As Pew notes, for women with higher degrees, that number is actually slightly lower than it was in the early 1990s—but it is still very high.) By comparison, in England, which has one of the highest percentages of women without children in the world, 22 percent of all women are childless. According to the new Center for Work-Life Policy study, 43 percent of the women in their sample of corporate professionals between the ages of 33 and 46 were childless. The rate of childlessness among the Asian American professional women in the study was a staggering 53 percent.
At the same time, the numbers of both unplanned pregnancies and births among poor women have climbed steadily in recent years. About half of all pregnancies in this country are unplanned, with poor women now five times more likely than higher-income women to have an unplanned pregnancy, and six times more likely to have an unplanned birth, according to the Guttmacher Institute’s recent analysis of government data.

Across the reproductive divide, there are other serious problems. The declining fertility of professional women ought to be sounding an alarm, highlighting the extent to which our policies are deeply unfriendly to parents. Low birthrates in Europe have inspired a slew of policies designed to make it easier to simultaneously work and parent, yet here, because our overall birthrate is robust, we’ve had no such moment of reckoning. So while Germany recently responded to the fact that its birthrate had slipped below 1.4 children per woman by making its paid leave policy more generous, allowing mothers and fathers to split up to 18 months after the birth of a child, the United States still has no national paid leave law in place. And while Denmark, France, and Sweden provide good subsidized care to the vast majority of their populations, we still have no decent childcare system.

If our overall fertility rate is at replacement level—if we have enough young people in the pipeline to do all the jobs that will need doing going forward—does it really matter so much if some women are having more kids than they are ready for and some are having fewer? Unfortunately for women on both ends of the economic spectrum, it does. Poorer women suffer when they have unintended births—as do their children. Research shows that women with unplanned pregnancies are more likely to smoke, drink, and go without prenatal care. Their births are more likely to be premature. Their children are less likely to be breastfed, and more likely to be neglected and to have various physical and mental health effects. Then, reinforcing the cycle, the very fact of having a child increases a woman’s chances of being poor.

This lack of support makes for not a little unpleasantness in the lives of working parents. Consider the harried existence of professional parents, as described by the Center for Work-Life Policy report:

They are working longer and harder, shouldering new responsibilities for aging parents, and striving overtime to provide their children with all that they, in many cases, had lacked—a smooth path of success and both parents by their side. The costs are steep and include anxiety and exhaustion.
If this is the job description, it’s easy to see why women would skip the interview.
At the same time, there’s little question why poorer women are having more unintended pregnancies. Only about 40 percent of women who needed publicly funded family planning services between 2000 and 2008 got them, according to the Guttmacher Institute. During that same period, as employment levels and the number of employers offering health insurance went down, the number of women who needed these services increased by more than 1 million.
The fact that our extremes seem to almost magically balance each other out is only part of the reason we’ve failed to recognize these problems. The other part is that we’ve applied a distorted notion of choice to both trends. Certainly many professional women opt out of motherhood because they want to—and because that choice is now less stigmatized than it once was. And many women in all income brackets come to embrace an unexpected pregnancy as a happy accident.
But as much as we’d like to see our decisions about pregnancy and childbirth as straightforward exercises of individual will, or choice, there are clearly larger forces at work here, too. “Whether it’s the lack of services and education you experience because you’re poor or the corporate pressure because you’re successful, the broader society’s organization of work and support completely affects something as personal and intimate as whether you have children,” says Wendy Chavkin, professor of clinical population and family health at Columbia. “These latest numbers show how the macroeconomic trends are lived out in people’s personal lives.”

With growing poverty rates and political attacks on already inadequate family-planning funding threatening to drive the number of unintended pregnancies among poor women even higher, and little effort being made to address the pressures driving other women away from having kids, it’s easy to imagine how these forces could push professionals and poor women further apart. Still, in their own ways, both are struggling with the same problem: an untenable “choice” between children and financial solvency. At this point, it may be the only thing they have in common.

On Moving Very Slowly

The American Dream is a bunch of bullshit.

We all know that, but do we really know it?

No, of course not. The idea that upward mobility exists and that some day I too can own a house that has a four-car garage if only I work hard enough is cemented in my mind.

Blame the media, blame optimism, blame whatever.

We watched as tiny little bungalows morphed into giant, sprawling houses with three-car garages. Those giant homes became the norm. Suburban settlement at its finest. You’ve made it.

For the record, I dream of owning a tired, old house and turning it into something magical. I love old wooden floors that creak and leaky faucets and the idea that so many people have lived there before you. I love the cramped rooms, the feel of warm rugs on worn floors. I want that. My only requirement is a sweet bathtub.

But at the same time, I’m threatened by the idea of never having enough.

What is enough?

To live, to love (and to be loved), and to breathe in every beautiful moment that I can find.  But also to someday have a garage (not four!).

For the next month, I’m going to try to implement small changes that will hopefully make me a bit more optimistic about my current situation. Lately, I’ve been wallowing in the pit of despair that is these months and I feel as though my wallowing is only making it worse.

I’m determined to be a little bit more hopeful, rather than so exhausted. So we’ll see. (Start taking bets now about when I’ll have my next “oh my g-d, what am I doing with my life” miniature meltdown)

Also, for the record, I am super awesome and got a raise at work! Friday was yearly reviews. I was terrified. I’m not sure if it’s the fact that I was a really well-behaved child or the fact that my generation was super coddled, but either way, I don’t take criticism well.  (My wonderful lady-boss popped into my office on Friday morning and told me not to worry, and after that, I didn’t. She really made my day with that.)

My boss offered me a 5% raise. I requested more. He came back with an offer of 12.5%. Of course I took it.  I was so proud of myself for being super calm and absolutely realistic and logical about the whole thing.

Baby steps, dear world. I am taking baby steps. But at least I’m moving.

On the Death Penalty


I am against the death penalty. I don’t think that anyone should be killed for their crimes, no matter how heinous. I believe that the presence of doubt, the potential for human error, and the 
predilections toward bias affect the outcome of every single thing people do. Therefore, there is no impartial jury, no impartial judge, no impartial anything. 
To live with the guilt I’d feel of sentencing someone to death would be to live a smothered life. 

I understand the innate desire for revenge, the “eye for an eye” mentality, the satisfaction of schadenfreude. But to kill another human being? You play g-d. You take on a responsibility that is not yours. If your g-d will judge the guilty, why should you? Punish them, lock them away, but do not take their lives. 


Some good news before the bad news:


Death penalty

Capital account

Sep 22nd 2011, 16:58 by The Economist online
Both executions and death sentences have fallen sharply in recent years in America
DURING the night of September 21st two prisoners were executed in America. Lawrence Brewer, a member of a white-supremacist gang convicted of dragging a black man to death behind a pick-up truck in 1998, died in Texas. Troy Davis, a black man convicted of killing an off-duty white policeman in 1989, was put to death in Georgia after international protest over the quality of the evidence against him proved fruitless. Their deaths brought the number of executions in America so far this year to 35. The charts below show two interesting trends. The first is the sharp fall in both executions and death sentences in recent years in America. The second is the increasing lag between sentencing and execution. And killing a white person seems disproportionately likely to secure a death sentence. The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s latest figures, for 2009, show virtually identical numbers of black and white victims of homicide, yet on NAACP figures capital crimes against whites lead to three-quarters of all death sentences.
Read also: “A death in Georgia
(above from the Economist, below from CBS)






Troy Davis executed, supporters cry injustice


(CBS/AP)  

JACKSON, Ga. – Strapped to a gurney in Georgia’s death chamber, Troy Davis lifted his head and declared one last time that he did not kill police officer Mark MacPhail. Just a few feet away behind a glass window, MacPhail’s son and brother watched in silence.
Outside the prison, a crowd of more than 500 demonstrators cried, hugged, prayed and held candles. They represented hundreds of thousands of supporters worldwide who took up the anti-death penalty cause as Davis’ final days ticked away.
“I am innocent,” Davis said moments before he was executed Wednesday night. “All I can ask … is that you look deeper into this case so that you really can finally see the truth. I ask my family and friends to continue to fight this fight.”
Prosecutors and MacPhail’s family said justice had finally been served.
“I’m kind of numb. I can’t believe that it’s really happened,” MacPhail’s mother, Anneliese MacPhail, said in a telephone interview from her home in Columbus, Ga. “All the feelings of relief and peace I’ve been waiting for all these years, they will come later. I certainly do want some peace.”
She dismissed Davis’ claims of innocence.
“He’s been telling himself that for 22 years. You know how it is, he can talk himself into anything.”
Davis was scheduled to die at 7 p.m., but the hour came and went as the U.S. Supreme Court apparently weighed the case. More than three hours later, the high court said it wouldn’t intervene. The justices did not comment on their order rejecting Davis’ request for a stay.
CBS News justice correspondent Jan Crawford reports that even the four liberal justices on the nation’s highest court agreed – Davis had multiple chances to prove his innocence, and each time he failed.
Hundreds of thousands of people signed petitions on Davis’ behalf and he had prominent supporters. His attorneys said seven of nine key witnesses against him disputed all or parts of their testimony, but state and federal judges repeatedly ruled against him — three times on Wednesday alone.
Officer MacPhail’s widow, Joan MacPhail-Harris, said it was “a time for healing for all families.”
“I will grieve for the Davis family because now they’re going to understand our pain and our hurt,” she said in a telephone interview from Jackson. “My prayers go out to them. I have been praying for them all these years. And I pray there will be some peace along the way for them.”
Davis’ supporters staged vigils in the U.S. and Europe, declaring “I am Troy Davis” on signs, T-shirts and the Internet. Some tried increasingly frenzied measures, urging prison workers to stay home and even posting a judge’s phone number online, hoping people would press him to put a stop to the lethal injection. President Barack Obama deflected calls for him to get involved.
“They say death row; we say hell no!” protesters shouted outside the Jackson prison before Davis was executed. In Washington, a crowd outside the Supreme Court yelled the same chant.
As many as 700 demonstrators gathered outside the prison as a few dozen riot police stood watch, but the crowd thinned as the night wore on and the outcome became clear.
Supporters lament Supreme Court's refusal to intervene in Troy Davis execution

Minister Lynn Hopkins, left, comforts her partner Carolyn Bond after hearing that the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a last minute plea of Georgia death row inmate Troy Davis In Jackson, Ga., Sept. 21, 2011.

 (Credit: AP)

Davis’ execution had been halted three times since 2007. The U.S. Supreme Court even gave Davis an unusual opportunity to prove his innocence in a lower court last year. While the nation’s top court didn’t hear the case, they did set a tough standard for Davis to exonerate himself, ruling that his attorneys must “clearly establish” Davis’ innocence — a higher bar to meet than prosecutors having to prove guilt. After the hearing, a lower court judge ruled in prosecutors’ favor, and the justices didn’t take up the case.
His attorney Stephen Marsh said Davis would have spent part of Wednesday taking a polygraph test if pardons officials had taken his offer seriously. But they, too, said they wouldn’t reconsider their decision. Georgia’s governor does not have the power to grant condemned inmates clemency.
As his last hours ticked away, an upbeat and prayerful Davis turned down an offer for a special last meal as he met with friends, family and supporters.
“Troy Davis has impacted the world,” his sister Martina Correia said before the execution. “They say, `I am Troy Davis,’ in languages he can’t speak.”

Members of Davis’ family who witnessed the execution left without talking to reporters.

Davis’ supporters included former President Jimmy Carter, Pope Benedict XVI, a former FBI director, the NAACP, several conservative figures and many celebrities, including hip-hop star Sean “P. Diddy” Combs.
“I’m trying to bring the word to the young people: There is too much doubt,” rapper Big Boi, of the Atlanta-based group Outkast, said at a church near the prison.
At a Paris rally, many of the roughly 150 demonstrators carried signs emblazoned with Davis’ face. “Everyone who looks a little bit at the case knows that there is too much doubt to execute him,” Nicolas Krameyer of Amnesty International said at the protest.
Davis was convicted in 1991 of killing MacPhail, who was working as a security guard at the time. MacPhail rushed to the aid of a homeless man who prosecutors said Davis was bashing with a handgun after asking him for a beer. Prosecutors said Davis had a smirk on his face as he shot the officer to death in a Burger King parking lot in Savannah.
No gun was ever found, but prosecutors say shell casings were linked to an earlier shooting for which Davis was convicted.
Witnesses placed Davis at the crime scene and identified him as the shooter, but several of them have recanted their accounts and some jurors have said they’ve changed their minds about his guilt. Others have claimed a man who was with Davis that night has told people he actually shot the officer.
“Such incredibly flawed eyewitness testimony should never be the basis for an execution,” Marsh said. “To execute someone under these circumstances would be unconscionable.”
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which helped lead the charge to stop the execution, said it considered asking Obama to intervene, even though he cannot grant Davis clemency for a state conviction.
Press secretary Jay Carney issued a statement saying that although Obama “has worked to ensure accuracy and fairness in the criminal justice system,” it was not appropriate for him “to weigh in on specific cases like this one, which is a state prosecution.”
Dozens of protesters outside the White House called on the president to step in, and about 12 were arrested for disobeying police orders.
Davis was not the only U.S. inmate put to death Wednesday evening. In Texas, white supremacist gang member Lawrence Russell Brewer was put to death for the 1998 dragging death of a black man, James Byrd Jr., one of the most notorious hate crime murders in recent U.S. history.
On Thursday, Alabama is scheduled to execute Derrick Mason, who was convicted in the 1994 shooting death of convenience store clerk Angela Cagle.


On Singledom, from the NYT (9/19/11)

September 19, 2011, 5:10 PM

In a Married World, Singles Struggle for Attention

Stuart Bradford
Here’s a September celebration you probably didn’t know about: It’s National Single and Unmarried Americans Week.
But maybe celebration isn’t the right word. Social scientists and researchers say the plight of the American single person is cause for growing concern.
About 100 million Americans, nearly half of all adults, are unmarried, according to the Census Bureau — yet they tend to be overlooked by policies that favor married couples, from family-leave laws to lower insurance rates.
That national bias is one reason gay people fight for the right to marry, but now some researchers are concerned that the marriage equality movement is leaving single people behind.
“There is this push for marriage in the straight community and in the gay community, essentially assuming that if you don’t get married there is something wrong with you,” says Naomi Gerstel, a sociologist at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst who has published a number of papers comparing the married and unmarried.
“But a huge proportion of the population is unmarried, and the single population is only going to grow. At the same time, all the movement nationally is to offer benefits to those who are married, and that leaves single people dry.”
Yet as she and other experts note, single people often contribute more to the community — because once people marry, they tend to put their energy and focus into their partners and their own families at the expense of friendships, community ties and extended families.
In a report released this week by the Council on Contemporary Families, Dr. Gerstel notes that while 68 percent of married women offer practical or routine help to their parents, 84 percent of the never-married do. Just 38 percent of married men help their parents, compared with 67 percent of never-married men. Even singles who have children are more likely than married people to contribute outside their immediate family.
“It’s the unmarried, with or without kids, who are more likely to take care of other people,” Dr. Gerstel said. “It’s not having children that isolates people. It’s marriage.”
The unmarried also tend to be more connected with siblings, nieces and nephews. And while married people have high rates of volunteerism when it comes to taking part in their children’s activities, unmarried people often are more connected to the community as a whole. About 1 in 5 unmarried people take part in volunteer work like teaching, coaching other people’s children, raising money for charities and distributing or serving food.
Unmarried people are more likely to visit with neighbors. And never-married women are more likely than married women to sign petitions and go to political gatherings, according to Dr. Gerstel.
The demographics of unmarried people are constantly changing, and more Americans are spending a greater percentage of their lives unmarried than married. While some people never marry, other adults now counted as single are simply delaying marriage longer than people of their parents’ generation did. And many people are single because of divorce or the death of a spouse. About one-sixth of all unmarried adults are 65 and older; nearly one-eighth of unmarried people are parents.
The pressure to marry is particularly strong for women. A 2009 study by researchers at the University of Missouri and Texas Tech University carried the title “I’m a Loser, I’m Not Married, Let’s Just All Look at Me.” The researchers conducted 32 interviews with middle-class women in their 30s who felt stigmatized by the fact that they had never married.
“These were very successful women in their careers and their lives, yet almost all of them felt bad about not being married, like they were letting someone down,” said Lawrence Ganong, a chairman of human development and family studies at the University of Missouri.
“If a person is happy being single,” he said, “then we should support that as well.”
Bella DePaulo, a visiting professor of psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, has a term for discrimination against single people, which she calls one of the last accepted prejudices. It is the title of her new book, “Singlism: What It Is, Why It Matters and How to Stop It.”
As an example, Dr. DePaulo cites the Family and Medical Leave Act. Because she is single and has no children, nobody in her life can take time off under the law to care for her if she becomes ill. Nor does it require that she be given time off to care for a sibling, nephew or close friend.
Stephanie Coontz, director of research for the Council on Contemporary Families, says policy makers often neglect the needs of single people because their view is outdated — based on the way they themselves grew up.
In researching her latest book, “A Strange Stirring: The Feminine Mystique in American Women at the Dawn of the 1960s,” Ms. Coontz found that in the past single people were often called “deviant,” “neurotic” and “selfish.”
“We do have the tendency to think that there is something special about married people, and that they are the ones who keep community and family going,” she said. “I thought it was important to point out that single people keep our community going, too.”

Are Jobs Obsolete? By Douglas Rushkoff

Are jobs obsolete?

By Douglas Rushkoff, Special to CNN
September 7, 2011 9:33 a.m. EDT
tzleft.rushkoff.douglas.courtesy.jpg
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Douglas Rushkoff: U.S. Postal Service new example of human work replaced by technology
  • He says technology affecting jobs market; not enough workers needed to run the technology
  • He says we have to alter our ideas: It’s not about jobs, it’s about productivity
  • Rushkoff: Technology lets us bypass corporations, make our own work — a new model
(CNN) — The U.S. Postal Service appears to be the latest casualty in digital technology’s slow but steady replacement of working humans. Unless an external source of funding comes in, the post office will have to scale back its operations drastically, or simply shut down altogether. That’s 600,000 people who would be out of work, and another 480,000 pensioners facing an adjustment in terms.
We can blame a right wing attempting to undermine labor, or a left wing trying to preserve unions in the face of government and corporate cutbacks. But the real culprit — at least in this case — is e-mail. People are sending 22% fewer pieces of mail than they did four years ago, opting for electronic bill payment and other net-enabled means of communication over envelopes and stamps.
New technologies are wreaking havoc on employment figures — from EZpasses ousting toll collectors to Google-controlled self-driving automobiles rendering taxicab drivers obsolete. Every new computer program is basically doing some task that a person used to do. But the computer usually does it faster, more accurately, for less money, and without any health insurance costs.
We like to believe that the appropriate response is to train humans for higher level work. Instead of collecting tolls, the trained worker will fix and program toll-collecting robots. But it never really works out that way, since not as many people are needed to make the robots as the robots replace.
And so the president goes on television telling us that the big issue of our time is jobs, jobs, jobs — as if the reason to build high-speed rails and fix bridges is to put people back to work. But it seems to me there’s something backwards in that logic. I find myself wondering if we may be accepting a premise that deserves to be questioned.companies unpatriot not to hire

According to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, there is enough food produced to provide everyone in the world with 2,720 kilocalories per person per day. And that’s even after America disposes of thousands of tons of crop and dairy just to keep market prices high. Meanwhile, American banks overloaded with foreclosed properties are demolishing vacant dwellings Video to get the empty houses off their books.We’re living in an economy where productivity is no longer the goal, employment is. That’s because, on a very fundamental level, we have pretty much everything we need. America is productive enough that it could probably shelter, feed, educate, and even provide health care for its entire population with just a fraction of us actually working.I am afraid to even ask this, but since when is unemployment really a problem? I understand we all want paychecks — or at least money. We want food, shelter, clothing, and all the things that money buys us. But do we all really want jobs?
Our problem is not that we don’t have enough stuff — it’s that we don’t have enough ways for people to work and prove that they deserve this stuff.
Jobs, as such, are a relatively new concept. People may have always worked, but until the advent of the corporation in the early Renaissance, most people just worked for themselves. They made shoes, plucked chickens, or created value in some way for other people, who then traded or paid for those goods and services. By the late Middle Ages, most of Europe was thriving under this arrangement.
The only ones losing wealth were the aristocracy, who depended on their titles to extract money from those who worked. And so they invented the chartered monopoly. By law, small businesses in most major industries were shut down and people had to work for officially sanctioned corporations instead. From then on, for most of us, working came to mean getting a “job.”
The Industrial Age was largely about making those jobs as menial and unskilled as possible. Technologies such as the assembly line were less important for making production faster than for making it cheaper, and laborers more replaceable. Now that we’re in the digital age, we’re using technology the same way: to increase efficiency, lay off more people, and increase corporate profits.
While this is certainly bad for workers and unions, I have to wonder just how truly bad is it for people. Isn’t this what all this technology was for in the first place? The question we have to begin to ask ourselves is not how do we employ all the people who are rendered obsolete by technology, but how can we organize a society around something other than employment? Might the spirit of enterprise we currently associate with “career” be shifted to something entirely more collaborative, purposeful, and even meaningful?
Instead, we are attempting to use the logic of a scarce marketplace to negotiate things that are actually in abundance. What we lack is not employment, but a way of fairly distributing the bounty we have generated through our technologies, and a way of creating meaning in a world that has already produced far too much stuff.
The communist answer to this question was just to distribute everything evenly. But that sapped motivation and never quite worked as advertised. The opposite, libertarian answer (and the way we seem to be going right now) would be to let those who can’t capitalize on the bounty simply suffer. Cut social services along with their jobs, and hope they fade into the distance.
But there might still be another possibility — something we couldn’t really imagine for ourselves until the digital era. As a pioneer of virtual reality, Jaron Lanier, recently pointed out, we no longer need to make stuff in order to make money. We can instead exchange information-based products.
We start by accepting that food and shelter are basic human rights. The work we do — the value we create — is for the rest of what we want: the stuff that makes life fun, meaningful, and purposeful.
This sort of work isn’t so much employment as it is creative activity. Unlike Industrial Age employment, digital production can be done from the home, independently, and even in a peer-to-peer fashion without going through big corporations. We can make games for each other, write books, solve problems, educate and inspire one another — all through bits instead of stuff. And we can pay one another using the same money we use to buy real stuff.
For the time being, as we contend with what appears to be a global economic slowdown by destroying food and demolishing homes, we might want to stop thinking about jobs as the main aspect of our lives that we want to save. They may be a means, but they are not the ends.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Douglas Rushkoff.

On weather, ew.

It seems like I blinked and suddenly it was fall.

In all of my praise for how awesome radiator heat is, I must have neglected to remind myself that they are only wonderful when they’re on. And since the days will still heat up to a reasonable temperature for at least another month, we’re not likely to see radiator heat until mid-October, which is for the best as we’d be sweating and miserable in our apartment otherwise.

However, rather than sweating and miserable, I am shivering and miserable. The cat climbs on top of me in the middle of night (I’m not sure if this is so he can get warm or so he can act like a small airplane blanket), and so I wake up with yellow eyes in my face. The first time it happens to you, it’s terrifying. After that, you sort of just roll over and shove him off. I’m going to have to get out the quilts and go digging around for extra blankets for myself – he’s already got his airplane blanket situation sorted. He has a beautiful dark blue fleece and satin blanket that he has laid claim to.

Brrr….

And of course, the broken window isn’t helping things at all.

But, I am looking forward to the winter because of snowboarding. This is the year I am going to learn it, get really awesome at it, and then get better. Now that E and I have snowboards, we’re ready to attack the mountains and become real 20-something Coloradans, emphasis on the rad.

Apres Awkward

Since there’s nothing terribly traumatic happening this week, you might just be treated to something relatively light-hearted and hopeful today!

But maybe not. We’ll see how it goes.

Last night, I was supposed to get drinks with the Biochemist (for those of you who aren’t familiar with him, he’s the guy I met online – oh dear – and then proceeded to have a very awkward three month non-relationship with). The last time I saw him, I was wine-drunk and sobbing. Ooh, rough. Jacob was there. I smeared mascara all over his white t-shirt. I woke up puffy. In general, not one of my better moments.

So naturally, I think he assumed that I was heartbroken by the demise of our relationship. Heartbroken, yes. About him, no. You see, technically – we can play this game all day – technically, I’ve never been really dumped. Like told, “This isn’t working out. We should see other people.” And even though I get mad points for telling him hours before he did it that he was going to do it, I was still upset. How often do you get dumped by a person you were going to dump?

We just didn’t click. At all. We both should have known better after the first date that nothing romantic was going to evolve out of it.
But still, we persevered.

I like to drink and dance and get naked in public (kidding, mostly). He likes to run triathalons and give anti-meat lectures (only once. But once is one time too many for this bacon lover).

Anyway, I was excited to get a drink and hang out, although a bit worried that we wouldn’t have much to talk about. Not that I should have worried, I am known for my ability to babble on endlessly at any time about anything. I am excited by the fact that we might be able to be friends.

So when he called, cancelled – I was exhausted, so that was actual a very welcome cancellation, chatted with me for awhile (good conversation – I forgot that he can be really funny. and so can I) and told me he was glad to hear my life was going well, I was annoyed. Maybe I was more annoyed by the fact that I told him (jokingly!) that my feelings were hurt and I was going to cry before realizing that his last memory of me is of me doing exactly that.

Am I that patronizing to my exes when we hang out? If so, I swear to never again tell them “I’m glad you’re doing well,” as though I’m alluding to the fact that I thought they’d be a schizophrenic mess without me.

I said goodbye, and hung up, cheered by the fact that I am a completely normal twenty-something sort of single woman. Bridget Jones would be so proud.