MonaVie

I like it!

http://www.the-team.biz/mv2475822/tabid/148/Default.aspx

Thai Travel

Hey Garfield, I just discovered this awesome event called the Ultimate Thailand Explorers, hosted by the Tourism Authority of Thailand. I really think you should apply. Basically, they are giving five teams of people from around the world free holidays in Thailand. If you are selected, all you have to do is spend six days exploring one of five awesome destinations (Bangkok, Samui, Phuket, Chiang Mai, and Pattya) and then write stories, take pictures and shoot videos about what you do each day.

After you upload the pictures, stories and videos onto the internet you then tell people to vote for you. How easy and fun is that??! The team whose profile gets the most online votes wins $10,000 cash and $5,000 in prizes (including more free Thai travel, Blackberry cell phones, and Sony video recorders!) The other contestants get some pretty cool prizes too.

You have until October 15th to shoot your audition video and apply for the contest. Judges will select 25 semifinalists so your video needs to be good. The whole rest of the contest will be determined by online voting, so it helps if you have lots of facebook and/or myspace friends and know how to utilize the internet to get people to watch your videos and vote for you. I think you would be perfect for this.

Go to www.ultimatethailandexplorers.com so that you can apply.

My You Tube Channel

Nothing there yet, but I have a few thoughts.

http://www.youtube.com/user/gajventures#user/D69D55A04C4AF2FD

Michael Jackson - Exclusive behind the scenes funeral photos

There were rules to me getting these:

1) copyrighted, so I cannot sell them

2) I can't give them away

3) I can't tell where I got them

RIP Michael Jackson 1958-2009

The Long Road to Obama

1803

Marbury v. Madison was the first instance in which a law passed by Congress was declared unconstitutional. The decision greatly expanded the power of the Court by establishing its right to overturn acts of Congress, a power not explicitly granted by the Constitution. Initially the case involved Secretary of State James Madison, who refused to seat four judicial appointees although they had been confirmed by the Senate.

1819

McCulloch v. Maryland upheld the right of Congress to create a Bank of the United States, ruling that it was a power implied but not enumerated by the Constitution. The case is significant because it advanced the doctrine of implied powers, or a loose construction of the Constitution. The Court, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, would sanction laws reflecting “the letter and spirit” of the Constitution.

1824

Gibbons v. Ogden defined broadly Congress's right to regulate commerce. Aaron Ogden had filed suit in New York against Thomas Gibbons for operating a rival steamboat service between New York and New Jersey ports. Ogden had exclusive rights to operate steamboats in New York under a state law, while Gibbons held a federal license. Gibbons lost the case and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed the decision. The Court held that the New York law was unconstitutional, since the power to regulate interstate commerce, which extended to the regulation of navigation, belonged exclusively to Congress. In the 20th century, Chief Justice John Marshall's broad definition of commerce was used to uphold civil rights.

1857

Dred Scott v. Sandford was a highly controversial case that intensified the national debate over slavery. The case involved Dred Scott, a slave, who was taken from a slave state to a free territory. Scott filed a lawsuit claiming that because he had lived on free soil he was entitled to his freedom. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney disagreed, ruling that blacks were not citizens and therefore could not sue in federal court. Taney further inflamed antislavery forces by declaring that Congress had no right to ban slavery from U.S. territories.

1896

Plessy v. Ferguson was the infamous case that asserted that “equal but separate accommodations” for blacks on railroad cars did not violate the “equal protection under the laws” clause of the 14th Amendment. By defending the constitutionality of racial segregation, the Court paved the way for the repressive Jim Crow laws of the South. The lone dissenter on the Court, Justice John Marshall Harlan, protested, “The thin disguise of ‘equal’ accommodations…will not mislead anyone.”

1954

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka invalidated racial segregation in schools and led to the unraveling of de jure segregation in all areas of public life. In the unanimous decision spearheaded by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Court invalidated the Plessy ruling, declaring “in the field of public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place” and contending that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” Future Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall was one of the NAACP lawyers who successfully argued the case.

1963

Gideon v. Wainwright guaranteed a defendant's right to legal counsel. The Supreme Court overturned the Florida felony conviction of Clarence Earl Gideon, who had defended himself after having been denied a request for free counsel. The Court held that the state's failure to provide counsel for a defendant charged with a felony violated the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. Gideon was given another trial, and with a court-appointed lawyer defending him, he was acquitted.

1964

New York Times v. Sullivan extended the protection offered the press by the First Amendment. L.B. Sullivan, a police commissioner in Montgomery, Ala., had filed a libel suit against the New York Times for publishing inaccurate information about certain actions taken by the Montgomery police department. In overturning a lower court's decision, the Supreme Court held that debate on public issues would be inhibited if public officials could sue for inaccuracies that were made by mistake. The ruling made it more difficult for public officials to bring libel charges against the press, since the official had to prove that a harmful untruth was told maliciously and with reckless disregard for truth.

1966

Miranda v. Arizona was another case that helped define the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. At the center of the case was Ernesto Miranda, who had confessed to a crime during police questioning without knowing he had a right to have an attorney present. Based on his confession, Miranda was convicted. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, ruling that criminal suspects must be warned of their rights before they are questioned by police. These rights are: the right to remain silent, to have an attorney present, and, if the suspect cannot afford an attorney, to have one appointed by the state. The police must also warn suspects that any statements they make can be used against them in court. Miranda was retried without the confession and convicted.

1973

Roe v. Wade legalized abortion and is at the center of the current controversy between “pro-life” and “pro-choice” advocates. The Court ruled that a woman has the right to an abortion without interference from the government in the first trimester of pregnancy, contending that it is part of her “right to privacy.” The Court maintained that right to privacy is not absolute, however, and granted states the right to intervene in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy.

1978

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke imposed limitations on affirmative action to ensure that providing greater opportunities for minorities did not come at the expense of the rights of the majority. In other words, affirmative action was unfair if it lead to reverse discrimination. The case involved the University of Calif., Davis, Medical School and Allan Bakke, a white applicant who was rejected twice even though there were minority applicants admitted with significantly lower scores than his. A closely divided Court ruled that while race was a legitimate factor in school admissions, the use of rigid quotas was not permissible.

2003

Grutter v. Bollinger upheld the University of Michigan Law School's consideration of race and ethnicity in admissions. In her majority opinion, Justice O'Connor said that the law school used a “highly individualized, holistic review of each applicant's file.” Race, she said, was not used in a “mechanical way.” Therefore, the university's program was consistent with the requirement of “individualized consideration” set in 1978's Bakke case. “In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity,” O'Connor said. However, the court ruled that the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions system, which awarded 20 points to black, Hispanic, and American-Indian applicants, was “nonindividualized, mechanical,” and thus unconstitutional.

My Thoughts – The ‘Gates” Affair

My Thoughts – The ‘Gates” Affair

You know me, never at a lost when it comes to having an opinion on the zeitgeist. The last few days, it has all been about race and race relations, sparked by ‘The Gates Affair’. For those who are unaware, here is the back story.

Harvard University Professor, Henry (Skip) Louis Gates Jr., returns home from a trip and finds that his door will not open. He and his black driver try to force the door which is witnessed by a resident in the neighborhood. The neighbor dutifully calls the police because it looks like two men are trying to break into a house.

Once the police arrive, Prof. Skip Gates has found his way into his home, and answers their knock on the door. From there it’s all downhill and a matter of whose story you choose to believe. You can read the newspaper accounts of the incident by clicking here.

President Obama during his press conference commented on the situation with a reckless choice of words. It was almost as though the visceral reaction churning in the pit of his stomach found their way to his mouth before his brain could coordinate with his mouth to deliver his thoughts in polispeak. Instead he chose to say that the police “acted stupidly.” That you can read about by clicking here.

I am writing this though not to regurgitate facts or figure out fiction but to let you know what I think, so here it is.

I think that everyone started off right and ended up wrong. Prof. Gates was not wrong to try to enter his own home, the neighbor was not wrong in calling the police, the police were not wrong to investigate. Where everyone went wrong was with the events that led up to the arrest of Prof. Gates.

If the neighbor had not called to report a possible break in, and it was, then this would have been framed as a racist neighbor not caring because they knew it was the home of a Black Professor.

If the police had not shown up to investigate, and there was a break in, this would have been framed as the racist police department not caring that the home of a black intellectual was being broken into.

If the police had not insisted on making sure that there was no one else in the house because they had a credible report that there were two men trying to force open a door, then this would have been framed differently had there been people in the house that the professor was not aware of. The police had to make sure that the story fit all the facts in front of them.

The Prof. Gates could have been more cordial with the men and women in blue who were looking out for his best interest when they showed up to investigate a report of a break and enter at his home.

Now here is where it gets tricky, maybe he was. Maybe he was cordial and tried to explain the situation about the door being jammed, but the police needed to be sure he lived there…or did they? It is possible that they did ask him for the one thing that they would not have asked of anyone who was not black…absolute proof that he belonged in that house.

By “absolute” I don’t mean show me your driver’s license with your address on it, but show me that you are the legal owner of this house. I can see that happening and it would easily explain the Professor’s rage, if indeed that did occur. There is thorough, and then there is thorough! But I have no proof that did happen so it is a thought that I am just callously tossing out there.

What we do know is that Prof. Gates was arrested in his home. This is the real tricky part of the scenario. How do you get arrested in your own home without having committed any crime? And this is where the police were wrong in their actions and to what the President might have been referring to as acting stupidly.

Before I explain, let me just say that I believe the police officer, Sgt. James Crowley. I believe he is an honest man, a good man, a decent man. I believe he believes he had every right to arrest Prof. Gates, and the facts, of the case, prove that he did. The only problem, I have, is with the discretion used in making this particular arrest.

The police finally figured out that this middle aged, walking with a cane, 155 pound, unarmed man really was the owner and they arrested him for being verbally abusive? I mean, he didn’t threaten them, in his home, in any way except with his tongue. That you can be arrested in your home for being verbally abusive to strangers in your home- notwithstanding the badges- is outrageous! Where was the cause for this arrest? He was mean to me…so I arrested him?

All of this brings me back to the question, what do I think? I think this was not a black and white issue. This was a pure intellectual brute power struggle. This was Prof. Gates and Sgt. Crowley engaged in a battle to exert futile intellectual control, one over the other. It was UFC Battle of the Brains part 1.

Prof. Gates never believed he was being picked on for being black, he just felt he was being picked on and chose the tools/words which he felt were appropriate to defend himself. The Officer was never threatened but felt that his stature as an office of the law was being maligned and he used the tools and remedies at his disposal.

At the end of the day both were right in their actions and both were so very wrong. That these two good men could allow a clear misunderstanding to lead the President to make his unfortunate comments is inexcusable. They really all should just meet up in the White House, have that beer that the President offered and have a good laugh at how silly they all were.

Chris's answer and my follow up

Chris

While I appreciate your opinion I must point out 2 very fundamental differences in the WWII and present day scenarios...
First, inside Germany there was not the same level of "as it happened" media attention on the atrocities - there was no free press reporting the crimes as they happened whereas in the US these crimes happened right under our noses - there was a congressional debate on whether or not waterboarding constitutes torture for chrissakes!
Second, the military tribunals were conducted immediately upon the ending of the war and the German public was able to purge and move on with their lives with some sense of justice. This has already dragged on for 6 years with nothing but lack of accountability and denials.

Garfield

Sure, but your point of view comes from the same breeding grounds of the philosophy terrorists adopt. Americans pay taxes, taxes buy bombs and bullets which kill our people therefore every American deserves to die.

Not every American agreed with the Bush administration, not every American ever agrees with their President but they are not all cut from the same cloth and need to be condemned as criminals.

I will agree with one thing, without an investigation into any wrongdoing and consequences for any wrongdoing, then it is possible that a great crime may have been committed which may go unpunished. Worse yet, it sets a precedent that can easily be followed in future similar situations which is the real problem with not deconstructing events to figure if and how mistakes were made.

My Answer to Chris Sapienza

Ok dear friend, here is why I don't agree 100%. The idea of punishing the entire collective for the crimes of a few is in itself a war crime...though I must admit, I am a big fan of embargoes. Even after WWII the entire German population was not declared as war criminals, nor were the citizens of Japan or Italy or any other country for that matter. In Serbia, Sudan, Rwanda, etc only those directly involved in war crimes were considered for trial or even accused. When you start accusing the entire population of a Democracy of war crimes because of what their leaders do- or do not do- then you criminalize their votes and their voice. There are those in the US who have always fought against what they considered to be "evil," now because of the lack of a positive result to your liking you would label them as war criminals?

Chris Sapienza's Politics

OK, my buddy Chris wrote this and I'm a wee little jealous since I have been speaking about this but have not written anything on the subject:

"Why every citizen is a war criminal: A letter to America.

Dear America,

In 1945-46 the Nuremberg trials were conducted in front of US Military Tribunals to prosecute the heinous crimes against humanity committed by the Nazis in World War II. While the first of the twelve trials prosecuting top Nazi officials was was the most famous, the third should be of particular interest to you right now.

Officially called The United States of America vs. Josef Altstötter, et al., this trial is more commonly referred to as "the judge's trial." In this case, the US prosecuted 16 high ranking justice officials, including 9 members of the German ministry of justice.

While 4 were acquitted, 12 were indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity for "the abuse of the judicial and penal process, resulting in mass murder, torture, plunder of private property." Essentially, the German justice department had manipulated the laws of the land to "make legal" the conduct of Hitler and his team."

read the rest here:

http://myopinionshouldbeyourstoo.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-every-american-citizen-is-war.html

The Greatest Truth

What would would be the transaltion of I Think, I Spoke, I believe! Because those would be truest expression of what it means to be human, The truth is lost in all of that to what I firmly believe must be reality because "I" think it. Not as some expression of a psychopathic lunatic but as the thoughts of a rational person.

I mean really, how could "I" be crazy when I'm so sane and normal and people think "I'm" funny, amusing, personabble, quaint, etc?

Tonight, "I made" a girl expose her "boobies" to a bar full of people not because I thought it was fun, but knowing that I could do it. I never met, never knew her before 9:30pm EST, but knew I had that power...and I abused it. I feel somewhat sad, somewhat amused and entirely ambivalent about the whole affair. Would I again abuse a power that is not explicitly thrust upon me but which I implicitly knew I had because of experience, worldliness, etc?...Of course I would...it's human nature. Do I feel good about that? stay tuned...life keeps changing.

Vene Vidi Vici

I came, I saw, I conquered.

Nowadays it should be pense, dice, veritas -- correct my Latin please -- but anyways, after listening to a few people spewing I was led to believe that people think Think It, Say It, It's True! no matter how non-sensical it is.

Cheney

Cheney must believe that Orwell's 1984 was a training manual and not a warning.

Joke of the Day!

It was once said a black man would be president “when pigs fly”…indeed 100 days into Obama’s presidency…SWINE FLU!

The Gospel According To John

I was watching a tv movie about the Gospel according to John and it jogged my memory that this was not a particularly great depiction of Jesus Christ.  Then I recalled that it wasn't the fault of the movie but the gospel itself which paints the man as a whiny, self-centered, self-absorbed, pompous, megalomaniacal, arrogant SOB prick that I would have happily seen hanging fromn a cross had I lived at the time.  

I was thinking, this must have been what Jimmy Jones was like when he was alive and kicking.

Fiddle Widdle

http://fiddlewiddle.com/

Day 3

Day 3 in the books except I feel I cheated sort of.  Chereece was hungry and wanted me to find something for her.  I suggested a few places one of which she agreed to.  I needed to run so I suggested we park the car at home and walk to the restaurant.  She agreed.

It was a 10 minute walk.  

She went in and I continued by starting to run while she ordered takeout.  The plan was to run for 10 minutes; 5 minutes one way, 5 minutes back.  It ended up being more like 10 minutes one way and 10 minutes back.

She was just coming out as I walked up to where I left her- I was hurting.  We walked back home.  

In total I was out there for 42 minutes but I felt as if I did not get as much out of it as on day 2.  I'm sure I did though.

Day 2

Better day.  A little more running, more distance in the same amount of time...plus I don't feel completely in agony today.  Don't get me wrong, I'm still hurting but never had the same pain moment as yesterday when I thought, "What the heck am I doing out here, I like being chubby."

And so it begins

Day one of my nightmarish descent into the pits of hell of exercise.  30 minutes running and walking...more of a long painful walk after a brisk little jog.  The good thing though is it was better than what I did the day before and the day before that which is to say, absolutely NOTHING!  

Hopefullt tomorrow and the day after, it will become more of a long run with a little bit of walking.  The ongoing barometer will be how far I can go in those same 30 minutes. 

THUS ENDS THE 5 MINUTE MANAGEMENT COURSE

Lesson 1: 

A man is getting into the shower just as his wife is finishing up her shower, when the doorbell rings. 

The wife quickly wraps herself in a towel and runs downstairs. 

When she opens the door, there stands Bob , the next-door neighbor. 

Before she says a word, Bob says, 'I'll give you $800 to drop that towel.' 

After thinking for a moment, the woman drops her towel and stands naked in front of Bob , after a few seconds, Bob hands her $800 and leaves. 

The woman wraps back up in the towel and goes back upstairs. 

When she gets to the bathroom, her husband asks, 'Who was that?' 

'It was Bob the next door neighbor,' she replies. 

'Great,' the husband says, 'did he say anything about the $800 he owes me?' 

Moral of the story: 

If you share critical information pertaining to credit and risk with your shareholders in time, you may be in a position to prevent avoidable exposure. 

Lesson 2: 

A priest offered a Nun a lift. 

She got in and crossed her legs, forcing her gown to reveal a leg. 

The priest nearly had an accident. 

After controlling the car, he stealthily slid his hand up her leg. 

The nun said, 'Father, remember Psalm 129?' 

The priest removed his hand. But, changing gears, he let his hand slide up her leg again. 

The nun once again said, 'Father, remember Psalm 129?' 

The priest apologized, 'Sorry sister, but the flesh is weak.' 

Arriving at the convent, the nun sighed heavily, got out of the car and went on her way. 

On his arrival at the church, the priest rushed to his room to look up Psalm 129. It said, 'Go forth and seek, further up, you will find glory.' 

Moral of the story: 

If you are not well informed in your job, you might miss a great opportunity. 

Lesson 3: 

A sales rep, an administration clerk, and the manager are walking to lunch when they find an antique oil lamp. 

They rub it and a Genie comes out. 

The Genie says, 'I'll give each of you just one wish.' 

'Me first! Me first!' says the admin clerk. 'I want to be in the Bahamas , driving a speedboat, without a care in the world.' 

Puff! She's gone. 

'Me next! Me next!' says the sales rep. 'I want to be in Hawaii , relaxing on the beach with my personal masseuse, an endless supply of Pina' Coladas and the love of my life.' 

Puff! He's gone. 

'OK, you're up,' the Genie says to the manager. 

The manager scratches his chin and says, 'I want those two back in the office after lunch.' 

Moral of the story: 

Always let your boss have the first say. 

Lesson 4 

An eagle was sitting on a tree resting, doing nothing. 

A small rabbit saw the eagle and asked him, 'Can I also sit like you and do nothing?' 

The eagle answered: 'Sure, why not.' 

So, the rabbit sat on the ground below the eagle and rested. All of a sudden, a fox appeared, jumped on the rabbit and ate it. 

Moral of the story: 

To be sitting and doing nothing, you must be sitting very, very high up. 

Lesson 5 

A turkey was chatting with a bull. 

'I would love to be able to get to the top of that tree' sighed the turkey, 'but I haven't got the energy.' 

'Well, why don't you nibble on some of my droppings?' replied the bull. They're packed with nutrients.' 

The turkey pecked at a lump of dung, and found it actually gave him enough strength to reach the lowest branch of the tree. 

The next day, after eating some more dung, he reached the second branch. 

Finally, after a fourth night, the turkey was proudly perched at the top of the tree. 

He was promptly spotted by a farmer, who shot him out of the tree. 

Moral of the story: 

Bull Sh*t might get you to the top, but it won't keep you there.. 

Lesson 6 

A little bird was flying south for the winter. It was so cold the bird froze and fell to the ground into a large field. 

While he was lying there, a cow came by and dropped some dung on him. 

As the frozen bird lay there in the pile of cow dung, he began to realize how warm he was. 

The dung was actually thawing him out! 

He lay there all warm and happy, and soon began to sing for joy. 

A passing cat heard the bird singing and came to investigate. 

Following the sound, the cat discovered the bird under the pile of cow dung, and promptly dug him out and ate him. 

Morals of the story: 

(1) Not everyone who craps on you is your enemy. 

(2) Not everyone who gets you out of crap is your friend.

(3) And when you're in deep crap, it's best to keep your mouth shut! 

THUS ENDS THE 5 MINUTE MANAGEMENT COURSE 

Kentucky Fried Chicken or KFC to you

I went to KFC today and they ran out of chickens.

Michael Steele wins RNC chairmanship

More relevant evidence that America has matured from her toddler stage and is now entering her pre-teen years.  First Obama now this from the Republican party, picking a Black man to run the party!  My My My, what fruits shall this tree bore?

Why might it be a bigger statement of America's evolving face?  Because, the Democrats choosing a Black man to lead the party is one thing; but the Democrats have always been cast as the party of the minority coalitions after they cast off their white hoods and cloaks.  

Conservatives and Republicans however were stuck in a rut.  They fully embraced all the buzz words of White supremacy; state's rights, southern pride, smaller government (euphimism for no government intrusion into my rights to segregate)...at least it was seen as such.  They visited Bob Jones University with malicious contempt, they flew the stars and bars with utter arrogance, they embraced and encouraged a dying dead ideal that America was in its infancy.

They surrounded themselves with people who clung to belief that people may not be property but they should be marginalized, ghettoized and given limited opportunity to succeed.  They hated the idea of co-mingling, they hated the idea of inter-racial, they hated the idea of equality.

Now with this news, it may once again be possible for Blacks to take Conservatives and Republicans at face value when they say that they believe in complete equality, that they believe in States rights provided it does not impose upon human rights.  It's possible to believe that smaller government and personal responsibility are no longer code words for something sinister.  It's possible to believe that they support full civil rights for all.

Mind you, the election of one Black man does not change all minds in one day, but it's a good start on the road to reformation of a once proud party that stood for equality and freedom for all God's children.

I have a Dream

I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.
In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.
But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.
We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.
As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating "For Whites Only". We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.
I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.
Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.
I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.
This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."
And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!
Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!
Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!
But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!
Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!
Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

Martin Luther King Jr speech

Movies

• "Bride Wars"As if to assuage the anxieties of the millions of same-sex couples deprived of the right to wed in this nation, here comes “Bride Wars” to make the entire institution of marriage look almost as awful as last year’s dreadful “27 Dresses” did.
• "Not Easily Broken"Somehow bypassing a Promise Keepers’ weekend marriage encounter and going directly into mainstream theaters, “Not Easily Broken” takes a moralistic view of relationship problems by suggesting that everything will be fixed if the wife spends less time in the office and more time having children. This may well be the first film ever made about the male biological clock.
• "The Unborn"The Kabbalah. Hot college students. An abandoned mental institution. Gary Oldman. Jogging. Twins. Nazi scientists. A suicidal mother. A lost blue mitten. What do these things have in common? They’re all pieces in the convoluted mythology of “The Unborn.”
• "Good"Jean-Luc Godard once said that the best way to review a movie is to make another movie; sometimes, all it takes is seeing a second movie about a certain subject matter to highlight everything that the first movie did wrong. Such is the case with “Good,” which deals with an intellectual who gets swept up into the Nazi party without ever thinking about the larger issues at stake; it’s a powerful film on its own merits, but it also points out how tame and impotent “The Reader” is in examining similar issues.
• "Defiance"“Defiance” director Edward Zwick certainly isn’t afraid of archetypes: We know who the villain’s going to be (it’s the guy with the bad teeth), we know who’s going to marry the hero (it’s the one woman who looks stunning with apparently no makeup on) and we know who the hero is (it’s Daniel Craig as the movie’s one blond, blue-eyed Russian Jew).
• "Revolutionary Road"I genuinely regret never having read Richard Yates’ novel “Revolutionary Road,” not only because its admirers tell me it’s a compelling look at mid-century ennui but also because any future attempts to read it will be tainted by the dreary film adaptation currently being inflicted upon audiences.
• "Valkyrie"Mark Twain might have subtitled “Valkyrie,” “The Not-So-Private History of a Campaign That Failed.” Director Bryan Singer is a master of forward motion in his storytelling, but he never distracts us enough from the knowledge that doom is around the corner for our heroes, a cadre of Nazis who sought to kill Hitler and negotiate with the Allied forces in the waning days of World War II.
• "The Spirit"The previews and trailers indicated this movie would be “Sin City” 1.5 in terms of art direction. I knew enough about the comic books to know that this style might conflict a bit with the source material. Despite this conflict, or perhaps because of it, somewhere inside “The Spirit” is a great film. Its potential can be seen in bits and pieces all over the screen.
• "Bedtime Stories"Even though “Bedtime Stories” represents a first for Sandler — a comedy that’s appropriate for all ages — it still feels like a giant leap backward for him. As Skeeter Bronson, the handyman at a boutique Los Angeles hotel, Sandler is doing that same silly, growly voice he uses in his “Hanukkah Song.”
• "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"Screenwriter Eric Roth is no doubt hoping that you won’t notice how many of his ideas from “Forrest Gump” have made it into his adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novella “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.” And even fans of that earlier film may find themselves overburdened; “Gump” director Robert Zemeckis isn’t exactly known for his light touch, but next to “Button” man David Fincher, he’s practically Ernst Lubitsch.
• "Last Chance Harvey"If there’s such a thing as the Laptop Lotto for screenwriters, “Last Chance Harvey” writer-director Joel Hopkins hit the Superball. Hopkins, best known for his award-winning 1998 short film “Jorge,” somehow scored Dustin Hoffman and Emma Thompson for a screenplay that, by rights, should have snagged Daniel Hugh Kelly and Catherine Oxenberg before winding up on one of the channels you’d ignore on a trans-Atlantic airline.
• "Waltz With Bashir"Unlike anything you’ve ever seen before, “Waltz With Bashir” will change your ideas about the possibility of film. It’s an animated documentary, which probably sounds like a contradiction in terms, but even describing it that way threatens to place it in the kinds of tidy, well-defined boxes that “Waltz With Bashir” consistently defies.
• "Marley and Me"A word of warning to parents out there who have been seduced by the adorable-puppy-in-Christmas-bow advertising of “Marley & Me” and are considering taking their youngsters to see it: Don’t. The dog — and this may technically count as a spoiler, even though the movie is based on a best-selling book — dies. And “Marley & Me” milks audience grief (and will traumatize children) more than “Bambi” and “Old Yeller” combined.
• "Yes Man"“And I laughed when I saw him, in spite of myself” isn’t just a line from “A Visit from St. Nicholas” — it’s how I felt about Jim Carrey’s performance in the new comedy “Yes Man.” Having been annoyed by his antics in many of his recent outings — take “Fun with Dick and Jane,” please — the world-class mugger dials it down and delights in this breezy (if somewhat formulaic) flick.
• "Seven Pounds"“Seven Pounds” slogs about, impressed with its own supposed depth, as we watch Will Smith play a man attempting to pay for his past sins. Director Gabriele Muccino (“The Pursuit of Happyness”) seems to think he’s in Ingmar Bergman territory, but he’s actually made the longest, most dour episode of “My Name is Earl” imaginable.
• "The Wrestler"It’s hard not to look for traces of the off-screen Rourke, ’80s movie legend gone off the rails, in his portrayal of Randy “The Ram” Robinson, past-his-prime ’80s wrestling legend, in “The Wrestler,” and perhaps director Darren Aronofsky would rather we didn’t. But Rourke’s work in the film transcends mere stunt-casting; his performance is a howl of pain that seems to come from a very real place, and it’s a potent reminder — as was his compelling role in “Sin City” a few years ago — that even if Rourke has made a mess of his career, his talent remains intact.
• "The Tale of Despereaux"Which came first, the rat or the mouse? Doesn’t really matter. Even though Kate DiCamillo’s book “The Tale of Despereaux” came out in 2003 — and won a Newbery Medal for outstanding children’s literature — the animated film version still feels like a rip-off of “Ratatouille,” which was only released last year.
• "The Day the Earth Stood Still"If you’re looking for chuckles this holiday season, bypass the miserably unfunny “Four Christmases” and go where the real comedy is — “The Day the Earth Stood Still,” a clumsy, moronic remake of Robert Wise’s brilliant 1951 classic about an alien invader trying to save the human race from its own self-destructive impulses.
• "The Reader"I’ve generally been a defender of the films of Stephen Daldry, but seeing “The Reader” made me understand why some people hated his previous movie, “The Hours.” That film, they said, was fussy and airless, tamping down truth and humanity in favor of the brand of dry “culture” that lures certain segments of the moviegoing public with the promise of a tastefully prim Sunday matinee.
• "Gran Torino"You’ll pretty much figure out exactly where “Gran Torino” is taking you within the first 30 minutes, but it’s a testament to the vehicle that you’ll mostly enjoy the ride anyway. Director-star Clint Eastwood brings his advancing age front and center here — he could have called the movie “Grandpa Torino” — with a performance that’s almost shamelessly crowd-pleasing at times.
• "Nothing Like the Holidays"Like the plantains and empanadillas that adorn the film’s Christmas dinner table, “Nothing Like the Holidays” is comfort food. Though its title suggests uniqueness, “Nothing Like the Holidays” is exactly like most holiday films, with the notable exception of an almost entirely Latin cast.
• "Doubt"I never saw John Patrick Shanley’s “Doubt” performed onstage, but Shanley’s film version certainly doesn’t shy away from theatricality. Light bulbs explode, telephones ring insistently during tense arguments, literal and metaphorical winds whip up — heck, an actual cat chases an actual mouse, just to make sure the audience knows what’s going on.
• "Che"Steven Soderbergh’s “Che” is by no means a perfect film, but in a season laden with dopey historical movies like “Frost/Nixon,” “Milk” and “The Reader,” it’s exhilarating to watch a film that doesn’t hit all the usual biopic script beats.
• "Frost/Nixon"You know how a comedian can completely ruin his own joke by stopping to explain the punch line? The filmmakers behind “Frost/Nixon” do the same thing, undercutting some of the film’s most powerful moments by tossing in scenes where the characters tell the audience what it has already seen.
• "Cadillac Records"While it tells the story of an exciting period in American pop culture, “Cadillac Records” winds up being so trite, tidy and two-dimensional that you would swear you were watching a late-night infomercial for the great music of Chess Records. All that’s missing is a toll-free number and a paid walk-on by Frankie Avalon.
• "Nobel Son"Just in time for year-end “worst movie” lists comes “Nobel Son,” a movie far too confident in its own cleverness and charm, two elements it lacks in abundance. “Nobel Son” is so utterly idiotic, that I can’t even bring myself to explain the plot.
• "Four Christmases"Vince Vaughn and Reese Witherspoon star in this holiday comedy that starts out casting a sardonic eye on marriage and family but winds up being a treacly advertisement for those very things.
• "Milk"“Milk” brings the politician’s story to life, but it almost mechanically ticks off all the moments you’d expect to see in a biopic. Watching director Gus Van Sant tamp down everything that makes him interesting as a filmmaker to make a big mainstream movie is rather disheartening.
• "Australia"Nobody does “outsized” like Baz Luhrmann, who most recently juiced up both the musical and the tragic romance to heart-exploding intensity with “Moulin Rouge!” Now he’s back to give the business to romantic epics with “Australia,” a sprawling ode to his home country that throws kangaroos, didgeridoos, the outback, a cattle drive, Japanese air raids and Nicole Kidman into a slightly overboiled stew that’s never less than compelling.
• "Twilight"“Twilight” is a vampire movie, but it’s not a horror movie. It’s never an easy task to bring a hit book to the screen, but by filling the screen with stares, stammers and silences, director Catherine Hardwicke and screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg tread into the territory of unintentional hilarity.
• "Bolt"One could forgive a movie aimed at children for shamelessly cribbing plot points from “The Last Action Hero” and “The Truman Show” — which “Bolt” totally does — since its target audience is ostensibly not familiar with movies that came out way back in the ’90s. But when the canine protagonist of “Bolt” borrows a character arc from Buzz Lightyear, even youngsters will smell a rip-off.
• "Quantum of Solace"As played by Daniel Craig in “Casino Royale” and now “Quantum of Solace,” there’s a case to be made for 007 as masochist. Craig’s Bond lets the audience feel the impact of every blow to the head, every bullet to the shoulder, every face-first landing into the side of a building.
• "Slumdog Millionaire"“Slumdog Millionaire” is a movie so compelling and, ultimately, upbeat, that it left me grinning wider than anything I’ve seen in ages.

New Year's Resolutions

OK, so I figure I'm going to at least give the vegetarian thing a half-hearted attempt. I'm not going to eat meat from Monday to Thursday inclusive. I am not going to be one of those fake vegetarians that say that chicken and fish don't count as meat but I'm not going to be one of those crazy psychos that wont eat eggs or drink milk. I'm simply going to give up meat for 4 days a week.

Already I'm hearing the gasps of incredulous disbelief and comments like;
"you're body needs meat everyday"
"it's too big a change for your body to adjust to"

Like really...come on!

What you're really trying to say is that you like me fat and unhealthy so you can always point to me and say, at least I'm not like Garfield.

The other resolutions are to study more, read more, and continue to expand on my activities.