Entries Tagged 'Uncategorized' ↓

A poll in Wednesday morning’s Toronto Globe and Mail reveals what many Canadians (and more than a few in this country) think of the heightened terror alert warning. Too bad the U.S. news media hasn’t the courage to report such conflicting views.

Black Radical Congress Statement in Support of the
Right to Gay Marriage

The Black Radical Congress stands in total solidarity
with gay and lesbian people residing in the United
States as they affirm their human right to marry under
U.S. law on an equal basis with all others who enjoy
the rights and benefits of marriage in this nation. We
say that human beings who live as family, love each
other as family and want society to perceive and treat
them as family should be entitled to precisely the
same legal acknowledgments granted to heterosexuals.
Current efforts to deprive gay and lesbian people of
equal marriage rights are an ultra right-wing attempt
to deem “illegitimate” any family that does not
conform to narrow-minded, religious fundamentalist
doctrine. These Republican efforts are also timed to
distract voters form the critical issues facing all of
us: rising unemployment, lessening access to
healthcare, and endless spending on war.

Since ancient times, homophobia has in various ways
proscribed the freedom of gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgender people to live their lives openly and on a
par with others, and denials of freedom are something
we Black people know a lot about. During slavery,
family members could be separated on a master’s whim,
never to see each other again. Indeed, although the
word “family” does not appear in the U.S.
Constitution, U.S. law evolved to include numerous
supports for family connections in reaction against
the destruction of family wrought by the institution
of slavery.

The BRC cautions all Black people being called upon to
oppose gay marriage to resist such calls. Given our
own history of suffering and exclusion, we have no
business assisting anti-democratic forces in their
disgraceful campaign to deny marriage rights to a
sector of the population that wishes merely to have
their families accorded “equal protection of the
laws.” Whether the pretext is color or class or gender
or sexual orientation, a denial of civil and human
rights to people on the basis of who they are is
unacceptable. The time was yesterday when we should
realize that our overall struggle against racial
oppression requires us to confront and fight against
homophobia, not only on principle because it can limit
and destroy Black people’s lives, but also because it
has harmed the lives of Black people, past and
present, who are vital actors in the overall struggle.
Have we forgotten James Baldwin, Bessie Smith, Audre
Lorde, June Jordan, Langston Hughes, Marlon Riggs,
Barbara Smith and countless other lesbians, gay men,
bisexual and transgender Black people who HAVE lent
their voices and bodies to the ongoing movement for
justice, even as they were being dissed and dismissed
by their own sisters, brothers and associates? How can
we continue living in denial of the fact that color is
not the only layer of oppression that burdens many
Black people? How can we, with our retrograde
attitudes and actions within our own communities,
continue making their burden heavier?

We could only shake our heads in sadness when a Black
minister in Chicago was quoted as stating that “if the
KKK opposes gay marriage, I would ride with them.”
That is precisely the kind of confused and misguided
sentiment among many Blacks that right-wing forces are
hoping they can marshal for their arsenal. While the
right-wing claims to be attacking gay marriage out of
“moral” concern for the welfare of American families
and communities, morality is not the real issue here.
If the right truly cared about the welfare of
families, they would abandon support for the economic
and political policies that daily challenge family
survival — wages inadequate to sustain families;
inadequate health care; lack of affordable housing,
etc. The assault on gay marriage rights is a cynical
ploy aimed at directing anger toward an historically
oppressed group and away from the real threats to
security around the world.

In these times of dwindling employment, rising
poverty, corporate corruption and foreign military
adventures brought about by the desire of economically
powerful forces to make even more billions than they
already have, the Black Radical Congress decries the
scapegoating of ANY sector of the people to divert
attention from the total collapse of honest and humane
governance in this country, and the looting of public
coffers. We stand with gay men, lesbians, bisexual and
transgender people of all colors in their quest for
full and equal human rights, including the right to
marry, raise children and sustain family life.

Black Radical Congress Coordinating Committee

Champagne was first created by a 17th century monk by the name of Dom Perignon. Upon tasting it for the first time, he reportedly exclaimed, “Oh, come quickly, I am drinking stars!” To keep his invention from exploding (he was only mildly successful in this endeavor), Perignon used wine bottles that were thicker than the norm, and tied the corks down with string.

* This heady beverage is actually a sparkling blend of red and white wines. True champagne comes only from the Champagne region of northeast France, where the usual grape combination is Chardonnay with either pinot noir or pinot blanc. Champagne-lookalikes from Italy are called spumante, while German versions are called Sekt, and those from such places as the U.S. are simply called sparkling wines.

* These bubbly concoctions range in color from the palest gold to a rich apricot blush.

* Champagnes range in flavor from yeasty to toasty, and from dry to sweet. The label will tell you the level of sweetness.

* Brut: extremely dry (less than 1.5% sugar) Extra sec or extra dry: dry (1.2-2.0% sugar) Sec: slightly sweet (1.7-3.5% sugar) Demi-sec: sweet (3.3-5.0% sugar); dessert wine Doux: very sweet (over 5.0% sugar); dessert wine

* The best champagnes not only come from premium grapes, but they’re also made by a complex traditional method called methode champenoise, in which the wine undergoes a second fermentation in the bottle.

* This New Year’s favorite should never be stored more than a couple of hours in the refrigerator, as excess chill will dull both the flavor and the bouquet. (This goes for other white wines as well.) Instead, store it in a cool, dry place.

* Champagne (and other sparkling wines) should be served chilled, so refrigerate it two hours before serving. If necessary, you can speed-chill it in about 20 minutes by completely submerging the bottle in a bucket filled with a 50/50 split of ice and water.

* How to open: 1. Remove the foil. 2. Untwist the wire cage around the cork. 3. Hold the bottle at a 45-degree angle, pointed away from any other people in the room. 4. Keeping your fingers over the cork, gently rotate the bottle (but not the cork) with your other hand. 5. When you feel the cork begin to loosen and move up, ease it gently from the bottle with your thumb. When properly done, you’ll hear a soft “poof,” not a loud “pop.” Champagne should always be served in slender flutes, which allow far fewer bubbles to escape than wide-mouth glasses do. Make sure the flutes are free of soap film and dust, both of which can destroy the bubbles.

* The best way to maintain the effervescence of leftover champagne is to use an inexpensive metal champagne stopper (available in wine stores and gourmet specialty shops). In lieu of that, drop a stainless-steel needle or pin into the bottle, then fasten a balloon over the top with a rubber band. The first method will keep the beverage bubbly for about two days.

* Did you know: Has your champagne lost its sparkle? Revive it by dropping a raisin into the bottle.

* One 3.5 ounce glass of the bubbly will cost you about 70 calories. You’ll also be imbibing 1.0 gram of protein and 5.0 milligrams of sodium — but no fiber, fat, or cholesterol.

How to choose, store, open — and cook with — the bubbly stuff
By Su Reid

Winter is the perfect time to get in the kitchen and bake. What’s more fun to bake than cookies? I first started baking cookies when I had a late night sweet tooth, was too lazy to run to the store, but realized I had all the ingredients already in the house. The best part is you get to sample each batch out of the oven.

Here are five easy cookie recipes to try yourself.

Apple Raisin Drop Cookies

� 3 cups all-purpose flour, sift before measuring
� 1 1/2 teaspoons baking soda
� 3/4 cup shortening
� 2 cups light brown sugar, firmly packed
� 3/4 teaspoon salt
� 1 1/2 teaspoons ground cinnamon
� 1/2 teaspoon ground cloves
� 1/2 teaspoon ground nutmeg
� 1/2 teaspoon ground allspice
� 2 eggs, lightly beaten
� 1 teaspoon vanilla
� 1 1/2 cups chopped walnuts
� 1 1/2 cups finely chopped apple
� 1 cup raisins, chopped
� 1/3 cup milk
� Icing, below

Lightly grease baking sheets. Sift flour with baking soda; set aside. In a mixing bowl, mix shortening, brown sugar, salt, cinnamon, cloves, nutmeg, allspice, eggs and vanilla until well blended. Stir in half of the flour and baking soda mixture, nuts, chopped apple and chopped raisins. Blend in milk then stir in remaining flour mixture. Drop by rounded tablespoon onto greased baking sheets. Bake apple raisin cookies at 400� for 10 to 14 minutes, or until done.

Spread icing on apple raisin cookies while still warm.

Vanilla Icing or Glaze

� 2 cups confectioners’ sugar, sift before measuring
� 1 1/2 tablespoons butter, soft
� 1/2 teaspoon vanilla extract
� 1/4 teaspoon salt
� 3 to 4 tablespoons milk

Combine all icing ingredients in small mixing bowl. Stir until smooth and well blended. Adjust for spreading consistency if necessary, adding more milk or more confectioners’ sugar. Spread on warm cookies.

The ongoing and open-ended war on terrorism, which looks remarkably like a full scale attack on the constitution and American civil liberties, was handed a setback when two federal appeals courts–one in New York, the other in San Francisco–ruled that the U.S. military cannot hold prisoners indefinitely without giving them access to lawyers or the court system.

These rulings are a direct response to an order signed by President Bush in November 2001 that allowed captives to be detained as “enemy combatants” if they were deemed members of al-Qaida, engaged in or aided terrorism, or harbored terrorists. The designation can also be applied if it is “the interest of the United States” to hold an individual during hostilities.

Now I’m no lawyer, but that’s extraordinarily wide latitude to give the government without requiring proof of any real terrorist activity. The definition of “terrorist” in this instance is left to the discretion of the Bush Administration as is “the interest of the United States.” By this executive order, anyone they want can be branded a terrorist and put away indefinitely. (I wonder if they’d still let me blog from a prison camp?)

Two cases will be direct beneficiaries of these rulings, the 660 “enemy combatants” rounded up around the world after 9/11 who are being held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and American Jose Padilla, who was seized in Chicago in an alleged plot to detonate a so-called “dirty bomb” who was similarly declared an “enemy combatant.”

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York ordered Padilla released from military custody within 30 days. A civilian, he was arrested in May 2002 and has been held at a naval brig in Charleston, S.C. The court ruled he could be turned over to a civilian court for trial. In a 2-1 decision, the court ruled that Padilla’s detention was not authorized by Congress and that the Bush administration could not designate him as an enemy combatant without such approval.

Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Rosemary S. Pooler said, “As this court sits only a short distance from where the World Trade Center stood, we are as keenly aware as anyone of the threat al-Qaida poses to our country and of the responsibilities the president and law enforcement officials bear for protecting the nation. But presidential authority does not exist in a vacuum, and this case involves not whether those responsibilities should be aggressively pursued, but whether the president is obligated, in the circumstances presented here, to share them with Congress.”

The San Francisco court ruling, also by a 2-1 majority, rebuked the Bush position on the Guantanamo detainees, who have been held without charges, some for nearly two years.

Because they were picked up overseas on suspicion of terrorism and are being held on foreign land, the Bush administration maintains they may be held without charges or trial. (Apparently taking a page from their bank fraud friends, they see these as offshore accounts, free from governmental oversight.)

Writing for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Justice Stephen Reinhardt ruled, “We cannot simply accept the government’s position that the executive branch possesses the unchecked authority to imprison indefinitely any persons, foreign citizens included, on territory under the sole jurisdiction and control of the United States, without permitting such prisoners recourse of any kind to any judicial forum, or even access to counsel, regardless of the length or manner of their confinement.”

The government plans to appeal both decisions, and they will probably go to the Supreme Court. But herein lies yet another reason why we must remove Bush. Another four years gives them more opportunities to appoint federal judges, making rulings such as these to check their unbridled power less likely to occur.

This is an administration that doesn’t just border on demagoguery. They have long since crossed the line.
………………………………..
Two items from The Daily Mis-Lead

• White House covers tracks by removing information

• White House admits pre-9/11 warnings; Bush still denies it