Achtung Baby: "Whoopi" Banned In Deutschland/Germany.

The Last Thing - well, nearly the last thing - that I would ever want to blog about is babies.

Ah, but this blog isn't so much about babies as it is an interesting look at the Legal Trouble that soon-to-be sleep-deprived parents might run into when trying to register that Perfect Name for their little bundle of... er, Joy.

"To Be Or Not To Be... One of the Many?"
In the U.S., the names Sophie, Hannah, Violet and Emma are enjoying rising popularity. Yes, they are pretty names... But...

Speaking as someone who - at times - shared the same first name with three other girls in the same classroom... For me, at least... It Sucked.

I've disliked my moniker enough that I've been planning on legally changing it for years.

What's stopped me?
Concern that my parents might feel slighted... mostly. That... and I want an uncommon name. One that - whenever I or anyone else says it - feels like it is Really Me. Something lyrical... a name whose letters roll and flow as naturally as the tides. I might even check out the numerology of the letters involved.

Oddly enough... I found out several years ago that my Artist Mother acctually had wanted to give my brothers and I much more interesting names. But, my Conservative Father rejected the idea of "... weird names."

So, currently (and, hopefully, temporarily) I am a weird grrl with an annoyingly common name.

But... Thank Goodness I was born here in the U.S. of A.... Here, at least, my parents and everyone else's have the freedom to make their own name choice.
Thankfully, they didn't go the Biblical route. But, they could have... (I shudder to think.)
They also had the option of giving me an uncommon or simply a non-gender specific name.

This Particular Freedom is not specifically cited in the Our Constitution, but it's here... we definitely have it.

Uncommon or Invented name-loving parents aren't so lucky in some other countries.

Achtung Baby!

Unique... Original... Non-gender specific Baby Names are OK in America...

But, if you happen to live in Germany and you decide that you want to name your newborn child something uber unusual...
Like, say: "Whoopi". (Based on True Events.)

Don't call-in a rush order on the birth announcements just yet.

After parents in Germany come up with their newbie's new name... they have to register the name... or, attempt to register the name with the Standesamt (Office of Vital Statistics).

The Standesamt makes the final decision as to whether or not the name is an acceptable one Appeals may be attempted for rejected names, but they cost Euros.

Oh, yeah...

As for the once ecstatic parents who wanted their babe named: "Whoopi"...

The whimsical name was rejected by Standesamt officials.

That's too bad.

Maybe those officials have never heard of this woman...


Peace.
L.

(From:online.wsj.com/.)
Name choices have long been agonizing for some parents. In Colonial times, it was not uncommon for parents to open the Bible and select a word at random -- a practice that created such gems as Notwithstanding Griswold and Maybe Barnes. In some countries, name choices are regulated by the government. France passed a law in the early 1800s that prohibited all names except those on a preapproved list; the last of these laws was repealed in 1993. In Germany, the government still bans invented names and names that don't clearly designate a child's sex. Sweden and Denmark forbid names that officials think might subject a child to ridicule. Swedish authorities have rejected such names as Veranda, Ikea and Metallica.

(From: yeahbaby.com.)

"German law mandates a baby name must reflect the sex of the child, and not endanger the well being of the child. Once a baby name is chosen, the expectant parents must register the name with the Standesamt. The Standesamt relies on a guide book which translates to 'the international manual of the first names'. The manual is referenced for making decisions on whether a baby name is acceptable. If additional information is needed, a German official will research the name which may necessitate calling a foreign embassy for additional information.


If the Standesamt rejects a proposed baby name, German parents may file an appeal. Should the parents lose the appeal, they will have to submit a different baby name. Since there is a fee for each name registration, having a baby name rejected will cost you additional Euros.


The Standesamt's website lists recent baby names decisions which went through the appeal process. The name 'Matti' was recently rejected as a baby boy name because the name did not clearly identify the gender. The name 'Calotta' was recently rejected because it was similar to the French word 'Calotte' which means cap. But, the Standesamt ruled the names 'Legolas' and 'Nemo' were acceptible baby boy names.


German baby names tend to be quite traditional in nature, and this may well be due to the process in which Germans must choose a baby's name."

The Inexplicably Underreported Assassination of Public Access TV (See: 1st Amendment)

I happened to have ABC's Nightline on my TV tonight (Friday) as I was sitting in front of my computer...
(I usually watch David Letterman but, when I heard Dave mention "the holidays", I knew it was a repeat and flipped the channel.)

I wasn't paying too much attention to Nightline either... that is, until I heard them talking about the uncensored and eclectic utopia that is Public Access TV and a recent (2006) California law that has - I sincerely hope it can and will be repealed - been allowed to - for all intents and purposes - Destroy It... and do so as completely and totally as a bomb would a building.

For those who may not know, Public Access Television is (was) a TV Station that's made available to you, me and everyone who might just be inspired to create a TV show and send it over the airwaves to thousands or millions of homes.

Public Access wasn't a BYO-equipment and everything else, we'll give you a space deal... Public Access TV meant a fully-loaded TV Station and included the studio space, all the equipment to get shows 'on the air' as well as a capable staff.

Until the 2006 California law (DIVCA, or the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act), your local Cable TV Companies - in exchange for the widespread digging and extensive cable-laying they were doing (not to mention, the ever-increasing prices they would be charging) - were required to make one or more channels available for public access (including the staff and equipment).
The best part was that the cable monopolies... I mean companies, couldn't control nor censor the content of shows broadcast on public access TV.

Tragically, this uniquely-American platform - the broadcast embodiment of our Beloved First Amendment: Freedom of Speech has been silently slain... No one heard a thing.

I didn't. Did You?

Even though I don't have cable, I was quite familiar with the Public Access TV program. But, I never heard a single word about any pending legislation that would take the Public out of the Access. Nor did I hear of it passing. That was in 2006. Here, in 2009, the first I hear of it is a brief spot on Nightline. Now, I'm grateful that ABC did the segment... I just wish that they and other networks would have done stories about it in 2006!

When I Googled various versions of phrases about "threats to Public Access TV" and "CA law Public Access TV"... Not a single Network Television reference appeared in the results. And, with the lone exception of the L.A. Times, there weren't any major or minor newspaper references. Nor Time, nor Newsweek, nor any other magazine. Not entirely surprising, though... as Time-Warner is one of the companies that is reaping the benefits of the Free Speech-Obliterating legislation. Apparently, the law was designed to help telecoms (Companies like AT&T Inc., Verizon and Qwest campaigned across the country for the legislation) expand into the profitable cable market. With DIVCA killing corporate Public Access TV obligations, these companies can now save millions of dollars... money that they will undoubtedly - instead - now spend on self-promoting billboard, magazine and radio ads, in endless junk mailings and for commercials on TV.

Wait a minute.... Haven't all of these same cable tv, international media-monopolizing and telecom companies already made many millions of dollars, if not billions, in profits?
Why are these profitable corporations getting what amounts to many millions of dollars in subsidies, while they campaign to expand their influence and increase their profits...
Whilst We, The People Get... Gaffled?

Peace... And Public Access!
L.

(From: articles.latimes.com

Cable Flips Channel On Public Access TV
A new California law allows Time Warner to close 12 studios that provided community programming in Los Angeles.
Critics say a valuable 1st Amendment platform is lost.

By Reed Johnson
January 05, 2009

For decades, public access programming on cable television has provided a virtually free forum for community activists and aspiring entertainers, for preening star wannabes as well as serious-minded political watchdogs.

But in Los Angeles and across California that forum began crumbling last week, a development that advocates say will strip ordinary citizens of a valuable 1st Amendment platform.

A provision of a law passed by the Legislature in 2006, which took effect Thursday, allows cable television providers the option of dropping their long-standing obligation of providing free studios, equipment and training to the public. In return, providers must pay a substantial annual fee and continue to provide a minimal number of public education and government channels.

The new law is designed to make it easier for phone companies to enter into the lucrative cable market by relieving them of certain money-draining contractual obligations.

In Los Angeles, 12 public access studios that provided programming for 11 community channels have been closed by Time Warner Cable Inc. That means much of the city’s diverse, neighborhood-specific public access shows may disappear.

If that happens, Los Angeles cable subscribers would be losing an outlet for their particular communities’ programming, said David Hernandez, president of the Los Angeles Public Access Coalition.

“It’s the regional broadcasting capability that’s lost,” he said.

Thirty other states, including Texas, Nevada, Florida, Illinois and Michigan, have enacted legislation similar to California’s Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act, or DIVCA, according to the nonprofit Alliance for Community Media. In several of those states, the loss of production studios was bitterly fought by opposition groups to little avail.

But the waning of public access programming in California would carry special significance for the nation, said Ron Cooper, a public access advocate and regional treasurer of the Alliance for Community Media in Sacramento.

“The rest of the country is watching,” Cooper said. “And not because it’s a good example – quite the opposite.”

In Los Angeles, public access covers an array of citizen-produced shows, including “Soul & Sound of Watts,” “East L.A. After Dark” and a late-night program by sexologist Dr. Susan Block. Between 30% and 35% of all programming is religion-oriented.

Although public access television often is mocked as a showcase for eccentric narcissists and sensationalistic provocateurs – what Cooper referred to as “naked Nazis” – he said only a small proportion of its content fits this bill.

“For the city of Los Angeles, the City of Angels, the media capital of the world to say there is no room for public” access, Cooper said, “I don’t even know how to describe it.”

Time-Warner says it is only complying with the provisions of the new law, which still requires a limited number of public, government and education channels funded by a fee calculated by 1% of gross annual revenue. In Los Angeles, that fee for Time-Warner amounts to about $5 million, which is in addition to a $25-million annual franchise fee.

“The spirit of DIVCA was to create a level playing field for all competitors,” said Patricia Fregoso-Cox, vice president of communications for Time-Warner Cable for the western region.

Fregoso-Cox said the company would continue to reserve four area cable channels for so-called PEG (public, education and government) content and that it had no plans to convert those to commercial programming. One city-run public access studio, in Boyle Heights, will remain open, at least for now.

As for the 12 studio closings, she said: “We have an exit strategy. Some of the buildings we own, some of the buildings we lease. Some of the buildings will be repositioned for other programming.”

In Los Angeles, the cavalcade of characters, gadflies and watchdogs that populate the public access channels aren’t going away without a fight. Hernandez has written to City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo and California Attorney General Jerry Brown to ask for injunctive relief against the studio closings.

“It’s a two-pronged immorality,” said Leslie Dutton, executive producer and host of the Full Disclosure Network, an Emmy-winning public access news broadcast.

“It’s immoral for the city to do nothing to replace the assets that are being taken from the public with the millions of dollars that are still coming to them, and No. 2, for preventing Time-Warner from closing the channels down.”

Dutton and others say there is no guarantee that any of the four PEG channels will be used for public access programming. They also say that neither Time-Warner nor the city gave adequate public notice of the studio closings.

“There wasn’t a flier or a handout or anything telling what this was,” said Rob Baker, producer of “The John Kerwin Show,” a celebrity-oriented talk program that taped what could be its last episode Dec. 17. “Nobody knew that public access is hearing its death knell.”

On the contrary, Fregoso-Cox said, “this isn’t something that hasn’t been communicated, that people aren’t aware of.”

The closing of the city’s studios is only one consequence of a nationwide campaign by phone companies – including AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and Qwest Communications International Inc. – to move into the cable market.

Many cable providers, meanwhile, are trying to compete in the phone market by bundling services (cable, phone, Internet), resulting in an escalating turf battle among powerful multimedia companies seeking control over a growing universe of information-delivery systems.

California’s legislation, drafted by then-Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez, a Los Angeles Democrat, was signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in September 2006. Nuñez said the law would increase competition and lower cable subscribers’ rates, a contention challenged by consumer groups.

Public access advocates acknowledge that YouTube and other Internet-based platforms have given new outlets for citizen expression. But, they point out, YouTube doesn’t provide free professional studios, equipment and training, nor does it pay for the staff to run the facilities.

Furthermore, Hernandez said, because public access television “is a public asset already, why should the public give up something that belongs to them?”

Public access advocates in Los Angeles and other California cities won’t have an easy time getting back in the studio. Cities are broke, and Los Angeles officials question whether the funds exist to help offset the studio closings.

A city report estimates that the annual cost of staffing and operating a 12-studio system would be $2.7 million, plus a one-time $4.5-million equipping cost, excluding rent.

“We’re looking at a year in which we’re looking at a $400-million deficit,” said Jose Cornejo, chief of staff for Councilman Tony Cardenas.

Cornejo said Cardenas and other City Council members had been scrutinizing the effect of the new law for many months and concluded that their hands were tied by the state.

The council therefore decided to adopt the recommendations of a report by the Board of Information Technology Commissioners. The report said the city should consolidate its control over the four remaining channels so they wouldn’t revert back to Time-Warner’s management, as would be possible under the new law, Cornejo said.

“Time-Warner is saying, ‘I now can do this. Go fly a kite, council,’ ” Cornejo said. “They usurped our jurisdiction with DIVCA.”

Councilman Bill Rosendahl, a former cable executive, said he supported public access as a 1st Amendment right and “an electronic soapbox.”

He favors studying whether it would be possible for the city to dedicate more funding toward it. But he said the city must address many pressing financial needs.

“We’re in this spot not because the city of Los Angeles created it but because the Legislature did,” he said.

reed.johnson@latimes.com

"Mr. Roberts Goes To The White House."... Or, "Oops! I Did It Again."

(Doug Mills/The New York Times)

The Presidential Oath as written in the U.S. Constitution:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

That's it. Period. Concise and To The Point.

Hmmm....
Oh Yeah... There's No "... So Help Me God." at the end... It's that Supremely Important Notion of Separation of Church and State and All, I Think.

But when Supreme Court Chief Justice and Constitutional Scholar John Roberts swore in Obama, he flipped some of the words, saying: "I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully."

I'm sure it was just nerves... Yeah, that's it. The Chief Justice just gets butterflies from public speaking.

Or, perhaps... inexperience? After all, he's the youngest ever Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

I'm sure it had nothing to do with the little issue of now-President Obama having been one of 22 Senate Democrats who voted against Mr. Roberts' confirmation to the Supreme Court in 2005 — Making this not only the First Time a Supreme Court Justice has sworn in a President who voted against him... But, it's also the First Time said Supreme Court Justice has had to do it TWICE.

Peace.
L.

(From: www.latimes.com/)

Obama Takes Oath Again, Faithfully This Time

A day after he and Chief John Roberts stumbled over the words, Obama decides to do it over to remove any doubt about the legitimacy of his presidency.
By David G. Savage
7:43 PM PST, January 21, 2009


Washington, D.C. - President Obama took the oath of office Tuesday outside the Capitol, as millions watched in person and on TV. He took it again Wednesday night -- this time in the privacy of the White House, with only a few aides and reporters looking on.

The reason: During the inauguration ceremony, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. stumbled over the oath's opening words, and Obama repeated them back, incorrectly.

The second time around, they both got it right.

The president's lawyer and constitutional experts agreed that taking the oath a second time was unnecessary. Under the Constitution, Obama became president at noon Tuesday, a few minutes before he placed his hand on a Bible to take the oath.

"We believe the oath of office was administered effectively and that the president was sworn in appropriately yesterday," White House counsel Greg Craig said in a statement. "But the oath appears in the Constitution itself. And out of abundance of caution, because there was one word out of sequence, Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath a second time."

Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar said, "It puts to rest all the doubts. . . . We lawyers are cautious folks."

As for Obama, he joked that he and his staff decided to repeat the ceremony because "we decided it was so much fun."

Yet it was clear that the administration, having been dogged by false Internet rumors about Obama's citizenship during the presidential campaign, wanted to take no chances about the legitimacy of his presidency.

During Tuesday's ceremony, Roberts misplaced the word "faithfully" when he was reading the oath of office, and Obama repeated the mistake.

The Constitution says the president must solemnly swear "that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States." But on Tuesday, Obama said, "I will execute the office of president of the United States faithfully. . . ."

On Wednesday, there were no such gaffes. Obama raised his right hand in the White House Map Room about 7:35 p.m. -- there was no Bible -- and repeated Roberts' words to the letter.

"Congratulations, again," the chief justice said, smiling.

"Thank you, sir," Obama replied.

Amar noted that at least two presidents, Calvin Coolidge and Chester A. Arthur, took the oath a second time after questions were raised. In Coolidge's case, his father was a justice of the peace and administered the oath to his son upon the death of President Harding.

"Coolidge retook the oath in a secret ceremony," Amar said. "He didn't want his father to know about it."

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine School of Law, said the do-over "was just a matter of caution and compliance with the text."

"But I don't think it mattered. No one would have standing to sue. Obama would still be president. But this would stop people from asking whether or he was legitimately president."

If It Walks Like A Duck... Then, No... I'm Not Looking For Pot.

One of many great advantages I've discovered about Blogging:
An acute case of laryngitis doesn't have any deleterious effect.

Ahh... Life in the microcosm that is Haight Street...

In the wee hours of last night... or perhaps it was later (earlier?) than that...

And, I am startled to semi-consciousness by an all to familiar CRRAASSHH!... Preceded by a nanosecond by the screech of wheels... and followed by the scraping SSMMAACCKK! sound of bare metal impacting the concrete of the sidewalk and accompanied by the multiple notes of the widely-scattered tinkling of now-exploded and jagged shards of glass.

No. It wasn't what you might think. There was - thankfully - no car/bus/motor- or bicycle accident. (Though there have been plenty of those.)

No, these were the sounds of a late-night, beer-buoyed, independent, glass bottle recycler's overloaded metal shopping cart suddenly (and very loudly) biting the dust and spewing its bounty of bottles - now in the form of jagged chunks, shiny shards and tiny slivers - across a wide swath of both sidewalk and street.

Previous experience has taught me to already know what was coming next... The explosive SSCCRR-BBLLAAMM! which would smash through the quiet - amplified by the soundwaves bouncing off of the the buildings - every time a late-night delivery truck, N-Owl Muni bus or slow-cruising taxicab determinedly stalking its prey - rolled a heavy, black tire (or two) over the larger chunks of glass. This was because the passing pissed person - who only moments earlier would have done whatever he deemed necessary to protect the catch in his cart from any would-be marauders - now couldn't be bothered to pick up the pieces. No, the broken bottles were now so much spilled milk. And now? Now, he had to put pedal to metal and work to replace the loss. So, off he went... with the rattling and clinking of his now much more-manageable shopping cart of bouncing bottles trailing off as he searched for more treasure.

As someone with a canine companion, I cringe whenever I hear these sounds.

It boggles the mind how many otherwise seemingly coherent/fully-functioning people apparently see no problem with dropping/throwing/breaking bottles on our sidewalks and in our Parks... and then... nothing - they just depart for whatever it is that their mysterious thought processes proclaim is 'important', 'worthwhile' or simply 'fun'... and - without any misgivings - they abandon their contribution to the community: jagged chunks, many-pointed pieces and razor-sharp slivers scattered across the ground we all walk on. All of us. Some with two feet - usually with shoes on, but not always... some can't afford them. Some with four feet... well, Paws, actually - almost exclusively without shoes. No Nikes... Just pads of soft skin and tufts of fine fur... Nothing that - in any way - is able to cross paths with broken glass and... forget walking away the 'winner'... in fact, in many cases you can forget walking away altogether!

In spite of my constant vigilance when out with my dog... Jessi has stepped on broken glass at least three times. When it happens, she instantly starts favoring a paw. Since she's a bouncy one, depending upon her level of pain, it can be hard to tell if something's happened or not. If she's in acute pain, she'll stop doing doggy things and stop walking - other than coming to me, leaning against my legs and not moving. If I even have an inkling that something's up - I'll immediately stop, kneel next to her, lift each paw and carefully and gently check each pad and in between... twice.

On two occasions, I was able to remove the painfully paw-piercing piece. The third time, we were four blocks away from home and, suddenly Jessi pressed against me and wouldn't budge. She maintained a look directly into my eyes - something she NEVER does - and I knew. I checked her paws twice... nothing. I stood up and... Jessi wouldn't budge. I checked her paws again - this time with a flashlight - and found a small hole with a ring of blood around it. Whatever she had stepped on had pierced the skin pad, gone into it and disappeared. No wonder she wouldn't move.

If you've ever stepped on a piece of glass/a sliver of wood/a toothpick or anything sharp and felt it slice open and tear into the tender skin on the sole of your foot... you might empathize. And, hopefully, you would never be so heartless as to leave anything so menacing in your wake (Especially in Parks, where such hazards are multiplied as they are then hidden by dirt and grass.).

But, I digress.

The whole jacknifed shopping cart, bottle spillage and the menacing mess left behind had an encore performance earlier this evening - different cart, more bottles, more foot-flaying flotsam left behind. Although - to the careening cart-driver's credit - he did make an effort to pick up some of the bigger chunks of glass. Unfortunately, he then tossed them on top of the bottles remaining in the cart, where they shattered even more, and the shards and slivers rained back out through the ribs of the cart. Pure Genius.

With this menacing, if not colorful mess growing, I grabbed a broom, dustpan and paper bag. Passers-by had a variety of reactions to me. Some looked confused. Some looked amused. (Most of these appeared to be shoppers, diners, couples, groups of friends.) Passing cars slowed to a crawl. Some (those with dogs and/or who live outdoors) smiled and said "Thank You." and/or "You Rock." One man in particular stood out among them all. I'd already spent about 20 minutes on the clean-up (There was a lot of glass.) and was nearly done when he walked by. "How much do you get paid to do that?", he inquired. "I don't.", I replied matter-of-factly and mildly annoyed at the question. Since when must someone get paid to do the right thing? "You're not getting paid?", he seemed incredulous. "Then, what are you doing it for?, he continued, Are you looking for pot?"

I kid you not. He really asked me this.

Now it was my turn to be incredulous. I stopped sweeping the now sizeable pile of glass chunks and litter - all of it thoroughly wet and covered in grime, took a deep breath, looked at him and spoke slowly: "No. I'm not looking for pot. I'm sweeping up broken glass (apparently the broom, dustpan and jagged chunks weren't a dead giveaway after all). I have a dog and many people around here have dogs. I'm sweeping up broken glass so that none of them step on it and cut open their feet." (Simple, concise and to the point, I thought... that, and I hadn't even hit him with the broom.)
His reply?
"Oh. Okay. I get it."

Moral Of The Story:

Well, there are two. One is Practical. One is Philosophical.

First, the practical one: Clean up after yourself... And, if it's within the realm of your means and ability... Be The Change You Want To See and Clean Up the mess left by those whose only Contribution to our Shared Environment will be as Fertilizer. (Especially in your own community. Hopefully, doing so will inspire copycats.)

Secondly, the Philosophical: Found in this Blog's Title, which says...

"If It Walks Like A Duck..."
... Then, No... I'm Not Looking For Pot.

Peace.
L.

Increasing Evidence That Israel Is Using White Phosphorus Weapons Over Heavily-Populated Gaza

White Phosphorus:
"White phosphorus ignites and produces layers of thick white smoke when exposed to oxygen, but phosphorous from an explosion will cause serious burns that can melt flesh to the bone and kill. Its use as an offensive munition is banned by the chemical weapons convention."
(From: www.guardian.co.uk/)

Increasing evidence from eyewitness accounts and people on the ground in Gaza is pointing to Israeli Forces loading its shells and mortars with the highly-incendiary chemical known as 'white phosphorus'.

International concerns for the safety of Palestinian civilians are "... amplified, given the technique evidenced in media photographs of air-bursting white phosphorus projectiles. Air bursting of white phosphorus artillery spreads 116 burning wafers over an area between 125 and 250 meters in diameter, depending on the altitude of the burst, thereby exposing more civilians and civilian infrastructure to potential harm than a localized ground burst." - (From: hrw.org)

In spite of these reports and video evidence, IDF (Israel Defense Forces) spokespersons are continuing to deny using the caustic chemical. They also continue to declare that they are following the guidelines put forth in international law regarding what materials/chemicals may be used, how they may be used and for what reasons - as it regards heavily-populated areas being targeted... like Gaza.

Recently, some Israeli officials have gone a bit further, in that they aren't denying using the disgusting stuff - something which they did in recent past military actions against Gaza - but they aren't admitting to it, either.

Only adding sociopathic insult to excruciating injury... Seeing various Israeli talking heads - such as the head of the Israeli Consulate here in San Francisco - calmly and without the tiniest hint of humanity, let alone any sense of regret - speak expressionless about the ongoing and growing Palestinian civilian deaths and injuries as well as the unpleasant results of "wayward" Israeli shells or Israel's intentional bombing of a known UN shelter... and, now, the shelling and subsequent fiery destruction of a UN compound that included food and other relief supply storage... who so blankly continue to claim that their actions are only taken in self-defense and that everyone should blame Hamas for all of the pain, suffering and death.

It boggles the mind that these apparently educated people are so caught up in their own bs party line that they are blinded to the simple fact that they are doing exactly what Hamas wants them to do... Injuring, maiming, terrorizing and killing countless Palestinian civilians in their mad drive to eliminate Hamas leadership... All the while remaining Unflinchingly Unapologetic.

Their military might just may, in fact, eliminate a handful of Hamas leaders. But, their complete and utter lack of genuine empathy or human compassion for the terrible suffering of Palestinian civilians will only inspire the survivors of this over-the-top offensive to line-up to sign-up and replace those Hamas members that the bombings actually killed.

This isn't cutting off your nose to spite your face... This is Blowing It Off... Along with blowing away any innocent persons who just so happened to be in the vicinity.

The "Chosen People"?... Hmmm, apparently, they never got the memo. Or, perhaps it got incinerated by some of their white phosphorus... along with the Messenger carrying it.

Peace... Please.
L.



(From: www.huffingtonpost.com)

Evidence Grows That Israel is Using White Phosphorus in Gaza
By Greg Mitchell.

For several days, charges that Israel has been using white phosphorus in its Gaza bombing have spread, unconfirmed but gaining some credibility as some human rights groups have weighed in. But today the charges are reaching critical mass in the wake of the bombing of the main United Nations compound in Gaza City.

This just in from Reuters:

A warehouse in a U.N. compound in Gaza that came under Israeli fire on Thursday was apparently hit by white-phosphorus shells, U.N. humanitarian affairs chief John Holmes said. "The main warehouse was badly damaged by what appeared to be white-phosphorus shells," Holmes told reporters at a news briefing in New York. "Those on the ground don't have any doubt that's what they were. If you were looking for confirmation, that looks like it to me."

And update from BBC:

"Human Rights Watch says it has observed "dozens and dozens" of white phosphorus shells being fired by Israel at the Gaza Strip - a heavily populated civilian area where its use is prohibited."

Palestinian medical officials said they had treated large numbers of casualties with unusual burns that were extremely painful to treat and could be consistent with exposure to white phosphorus (WP).

The Times of London reported earlier today:

"The Israeli military has denied using white phosphorus shells in the Gaza offensive, although an investigation by The Times has revealed that dozens of Palestinians in Gaza have sustained serious injuries from the substance, which burns at extremely high temperatures. The Geneva Convention of 1980 proscribes the use of white phosphorus as a weapon of war in civilian areas, although it can be used to create a smokescreen. The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) said today that all weapons used in Gaza were "within the scope of international law.""

In fact, the International Red Cross has stated that Israel is certainly using it and Israel's response was a non-denial, a spokesman explaining that the military "wishes to reiterate that it uses weapons in compliance with international law, while strictly observing that they be used in accordance with the type of combat and its characteristics."

Foreign press cannot get to bottom of it due to Israel refusing journalists' entry to Gaza.

The use of white phosphorus as an illuminating device only is okayed by international law but such use is extremely risky and banned for use in dense civilian areas. The fires it sets cannot be put out with the usual water or fire extinguishers.

Today, at least two United Nations officials have flatly declared that three or more white phosphorous shells were part of the attack today that set a UN building and compound ablaze in Gaza City. Here is just one of many press reports, just posted by The New York Times:

"A spokesman for the Relief and Works Agency, Christopher Gunness, said that the Israelis had been provided with the GPS coordinates of all United Nations facilities in Gaza. He said that two buildings were ablaze and that there were five fully laden fuel vehicles at the site....
In the attack on Thursday, Mr. Gunness said, the Israelis used phosphorous shells, according to Bloomberg. "The Israelis have shot three phosphorus shells against the compound, where hundreds of civilians are being sheltered," he was quoted as saying.

Earlier this week The New York Times reported on growing civilian charges of white phosphorus use:

Luay Suboh, 10, from Beit Lahiya, lost his eyesight and some skin on his face Saturday when, his mother said, a fiery substance clung to him as he darted home from a shelter where his family was staying to pick up clothes. The substance smelled like burned trash, said Ms. Jaawanah, the mother who fled her home in Zeitoun, who had experienced it too. She had no affection for Hamas, but her sufferings were changing that. 'Do you think I'm against them firing rockets now?' she asked, referring to Hamas. 'No. I was against it before. Not anymore.'
Also this week, AFP reported:

"Medics in Gaza say they have treated more than 50 people suffering burns caused by controversial white phosphorus shells, a claim backed up by a report of the New York-based Human Rights Watch. And two Norwegian doctors, recently returned from working in the Gaza Strip, accused Israel of using the territory as a testing ground for a new "extremely nasty" type of explosive."

Then there is today's report by The Times of London from correspondent Sheera Franklin in Jerusalem:

"Remnants of an Israeli white phosphorus shell, identified by the marking on the outer casing -- M825A1 -- have been found in the village of Sheikh Ajilin in western Gaza. Witnesses in Gaza said that the shell was fired on January 9 and was taken indoors as evidence. They recalled seeing thick smoke and smelling a strong odour in keeping with the garlic-like smell associated with white phosphorus.
Hebrew writing on the shell casing reads "exploding smoke" -- the term the Israeli army uses for white phosphorus. Doctors who examined the shell said that it appeared to include phosphorus residue. Residents said that they suffered burns on their feet when they walked where the shelling had taken place."

(From: democracynow.org)*"Medics and human rights groups are also reporting that they are seeing injuries distinctive of another controversial weapon, Dense Inert Metal Explosive, known as DIME, that was designed by the US Air Force in 2006."
Gives a new and very ugly meaning to the phrase: "Dropping a DIME."
L.

The Billboard of SHAME Invites You To: "Visit... WHERE?!"(You've Gotta See This.)

Skateboarding back from the San Francisco CalTrain Station to Market Street the other night - in the midst of crossing a street - something caught my eye.

From what I've observed, it seems that the majority of people on the street rarely Look Up...

Thankfully, I'm not part of that majority.

I couldn't believe what I was seeing. "You Have Got To Be Kidding Me!", I said - to no one in particular - and burst out laughing. I felt it was my civic duty to photograph it and post it here in my Blog.

This is what I saw...




"Visit Israel * Different From The Israel In The News!"

Yes, that's right people of Earth! There are countless places in Israel where tourists can spend lots of money, do lots of shopping,... and not hear a single Israeli Bomb Dropping!

Now that you mention it... I hate it when my shopping excursions get interrupted by targeted air strikes and that annoying high-pitched whistle that precedes a direct missle or bomb hit...

It's really good to know that - in spite of the terrible suffering, thousands of injuries and violent, bloody deaths of over 400 men, women and children in Gaza...

There are still places where you can Get Your Party On In The 'Holy Land.'

Excuse me... I think I'm going to go throw up now.

Peace.
(Soon, I Hope.)
L.