Friday, February 10, 2012
SNAP! Gutiérrez on the ‘food stamp president’
In this video, US Representative Luis Gutiérrez (D-Illinois-04) good-humouredly explores the facts and figures behind Newt Gingrich’s declaration that President Obama is “the food stamp president.” In the process, Gutiérrez exposes how shallow Gingrich’s intellectual depth really is, something that’s always fun to watch. Gutiérrez concludes his remarks with the one obvious fact that seems to elude the Republican candidate and his allies: "Hunger knows no race or religion or age or political party. Hunger is colorblind."
I’ve long been a fan of Luis Gutiérrez. I knew him primarily as Alderman for Chicago’s 26th Ward, where he was a leading champion of Chicago’s Human Rights Ordinance and other progressive causes. The Human Rights Ordinance banned discrimination against GLBT people in Chicago a couple decades before the state of Illinois finally followed suit. In so doing, it extended human rights protections to roughly a third of Illinoisans. It was a very big deal.
Gutiérrez ran for Congress in 1992, and I was a little concerned because it would me the loss of a progressive leader in the Chicago City Council. However, he carried that leadership to Congress where he champions many of the issues I most care about, including comprehensive immigration reform.
So, that’s why I’ve admired and respected Rep. Luis Gutiérrez for a 25 years. This video gives just a little hint of why.
Labels:
AmeriNZ,
Chicago,
Gay Rights,
History,
Illinois,
Immigration Policy,
LGBT,
US Politics,
Video
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
D is for Dickens
February 7 was the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Dickens, one of the towering literary giants of literature in English. I put it that way on purpose: While Dickens was English, he is one of the English writers who has most influenced other writers throughout the English-speaking world. He’s still so famous that he’s one of the few authors who are often referred to by their surname alone.
The video above from the BBC is a brief animated look at the life of Charles Dickens.
I first encountered Dickens in high school when we read and studied his best-selling novel, A Tale of Two Cities. Years later, I finally read A Christmas Carol, one of his best-known works, though I’d seen many of the movie versions, including the 1938 version starring Reginald Owen and Gene Lockhart, among others, and even odd versions like the one with Mr. Magoo.
However, while it was high school where I first read Dickens, I’d been aware of him pretty much my whole life. My family had the Authors Card Game
However, it was my mother who introduced me to English literature, including Dickens. She was a self-described Anglophile and shared that love with me. I have to admit, however, that not all her enthusiasm transferred to me. Still, Dickens is one author I did enjoy, probably in part because he was a champion of the poor and of social reform. I have several e-book editions of his books.
The slang term “dickens”, meaning devil, is far older and is not, as some suppose, some sort of retaliation for Charles Dickens’ calls to end debtors’ prisons, workhouses and in support of other social reforms (though it may have originated—in the 16th century—from that surname).
So, happy birthday Mr. Dickens.
Charles Dickens' books are available as free text files from Project Gutenberg. They are also available from Amazon
Labels:
ABC Wednesday,
AmeriNZ,
Book Talk,
History,
Movies,
Pop Culture,
Video
Saturday, February 04, 2012
More good economic news for the US
In this video, the Associated Press reports that the unemployment rate fell for the fifth straight month—down to 8.3%, the lowest in three years. This comes hard on the heels of good economic news last month, namely that the US had experienced 22 months of job growth, and that 2011 was the best year for job growth since 2005 and the second best since 1999.
All of which is a good start—and good news.
Labels:
America,
Politics (International),
US Politics,
Video
Friday, February 03, 2012
SPLC Challenges DOMA
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has filed a legal challenge to the US’ blatantly unconstitutional “Defense” of Marriage Act (DOMA), which forbids the US government from recognising same-sex marriages for any federal purpose whatsoever.
Currently, same-sex marriage is legal in six US states and the District of Columbia, along with many countries, but those marriages don’t exist according to the US government. What that means is that the US government is unconstitutionally treating different citizens differently.
This case involves the US military unconstitutionally treating the legal spouse of a service member differently on account of gender. The SPLC case is sound, and no one seriously doubts that if it’s not repealed, DOMA will inevitably be struck down. Sooner is better than later. Kudos to the SPLC.
Labels:
America,
Gay Rights,
LGBT,
Marriage Equality,
US Politics,
Video
Thursday, February 02, 2012
Blogger confusion
Contrary to what some may think, I am not, by nature, a conspiracy theorist, anti-establishment moaner or even a full-time cynic, though at times I can be one or all three. Having said that, I want to throw a concern "out there" and see if anyone can help me understand something.
Recently Google made a change to its Blogger blogging platform (which powers this blog). It now takes the URL which normally ends in dot com and has it resolve for readers outside the US to the same URL, but with one's country TLD instead. So, for example, instead of seeing my blog as "amerinz.blogspot.com", New Zealanders will see "amerinz.blogspot.co.nz" and, I presume, other countries will see something similar (like "amerinz.blogspot.co.uk" and "amerinz.blogspot.com.au"—maybe folks in those countries can let me know if that's true).
My question/concern is this: What's the point of this if not to enable country-specific censorship? Is there anything even remotely beneficial to the blogger or reader in this change? I honestly can't see or think of a positive reason for it, unless Google is mirroring the blog locally, maybe, but I seriously doubt they are.
I first found out about this when all the comments on a Blogger blog I visit every day suddenly disappeared. It turns out, Google’s change wreaked havoc with blogs that use custom comment systems (like JS-Kit, for example). I can't see any comments left on a dot com Blogger blog that uses such a system—including my own comments I left before the change. I assume the change could also muck-up other customisations, too.
I’ve since discovered that using an anonymiser like Little Tunnel Bear (http://www.tunnelbear.com/) can get around this problem. I’ve also read that the IP blocker Hotspot Shield (http://hotspotshield.com/) does the same thing, though I haven’t tried it yet.
The point is, it shouldn’t be this hard, and it doesn’t really matter whether the problem lies with Google or JS-Kit: Location doesn’t mean anything for the users of the Internet, it only matters to certain content providers—and governments—who have a vested interest in restricting access. Also, Google lets you use the dot com or, in my case, the dot co dot nz version, so why don’t they allow that for Blogger?
I'm well aware that I could use another blogging platform or self-host as my podcasts are, but I'm not even sure I care that much. However, if it really is all about making censorship easier, that could be reason for me to abandon Blogger.
I hope that someone can shed some light on this.
I first published an earlier version of this post on Google+.
Recently Google made a change to its Blogger blogging platform (which powers this blog). It now takes the URL which normally ends in dot com and has it resolve for readers outside the US to the same URL, but with one's country TLD instead. So, for example, instead of seeing my blog as "amerinz.blogspot.com", New Zealanders will see "amerinz.blogspot.co.nz" and, I presume, other countries will see something similar (like "amerinz.blogspot.co.uk" and "amerinz.blogspot.com.au"—maybe folks in those countries can let me know if that's true).
My question/concern is this: What's the point of this if not to enable country-specific censorship? Is there anything even remotely beneficial to the blogger or reader in this change? I honestly can't see or think of a positive reason for it, unless Google is mirroring the blog locally, maybe, but I seriously doubt they are.
I first found out about this when all the comments on a Blogger blog I visit every day suddenly disappeared. It turns out, Google’s change wreaked havoc with blogs that use custom comment systems (like JS-Kit, for example). I can't see any comments left on a dot com Blogger blog that uses such a system—including my own comments I left before the change. I assume the change could also muck-up other customisations, too.
I’ve since discovered that using an anonymiser like Little Tunnel Bear (http://www.tunnelbear.com/) can get around this problem. I’ve also read that the IP blocker Hotspot Shield (http://hotspotshield.com/) does the same thing, though I haven’t tried it yet.
The point is, it shouldn’t be this hard, and it doesn’t really matter whether the problem lies with Google or JS-Kit: Location doesn’t mean anything for the users of the Internet, it only matters to certain content providers—and governments—who have a vested interest in restricting access. Also, Google lets you use the dot com or, in my case, the dot co dot nz version, so why don’t they allow that for Blogger?
I'm well aware that I could use another blogging platform or self-host as my podcasts are, but I'm not even sure I care that much. However, if it really is all about making censorship easier, that could be reason for me to abandon Blogger.
I hope that someone can shed some light on this.
I first published an earlier version of this post on Google+.
Wednesday, February 01, 2012
C is for City
Cities are as ancient as civilisation itself. As soon as we humans worked out that it was in our best interest to live together in settlements, it was only a matter of time until those settlements grew large, then larger still. Today, of course, cities are a very big deal—and today was an especially big deal for Auckland.
The United Nations estimated that by 2008 half the world’s population lived in cities. Other estimates suggest that three-quarters of the population of developed countries lives in cities, while only 44 percent of the population of less-developed countries do. [source]
The precise definition of what a city is varies from place to place, even within some countries (such as, different US states have different methods and mechanisms for creating cities). Nevertheless, at a minimum, a city generally refers to a specific geographic location governed by one government. That means it’s not a city’s metropolitan region, which is bigger in both area and population.
New Zealand has a useful definition to illustrate this, saying that in New Zealand, cities “must have a minimum population of 50,000, be predominantly urban in character, be a distinct entity and a major centre of activity within the region.” This is contained within the Local Government Act 1974.
Just today Auckland, my current home, reached a population of 1.5 million. It’s a very big deal for us and for New Zealand.
Auckland is by far New Zealand’s largest city. It has roughly a third of the entire country’s population—though that’s not enough to make the list of the 100 most populated cities in the world. The current Auckland Council was created by the New Zealand Parliament out of seven former city and district councils, and came into being in November 1, 2010. It covers 4,894 square kilometres (1,889.6 square miles), a fact that means Auckland is in the 20 largest cities by area (again, this refers only to cities and their specific geographic areas of jurisdiction, not to metropolitan regions).
The distinction between city and region is an important one, and not as obvious as one might think. For example, when a Kiwi talks about the population of, say, Los Angeles, Chicago or New York, they’re almost always talking about the region, not the legally defined city (until last year, the same would have been true if they were talking about Auckland; now, of course, city and region are the same).
This distinction shows up something that’s very different in North America and New Zealand: Suburbs. In North America, a suburb is an outlying town, not legally part of the city, but within commuting distance of it. In New Zealand, a suburb is a geographic area within the city—analogous to a neighbourhood in an American city. New Zealand suburbs are used by New Zealand Post for delivering mail and also by delivery companies.
I was born in a small city, grew up in suburbs, went to university in a small city, moved to Chicago, then to Auckland (twice—interrupted by a couple years spent in a small, rural town). I’ve learned through this that I’m a city boy. It doesn’t have to be a big city, and I don’t have to live in the heart of it, just as long as it has all the urban amenities a city has to offer. I particularly appreciate being able to get a service done or go get something in particular (like, for example, a part to repair something in the house) without having to drive hours or order online. I also enjoy the excitement and multi-culturalism that a city offers—that and all the entertainment and food options.
So, add it all up, and the city is best for me. I know plenty of people for whom that’s not true, though. So, what about you? Given your choice, would you rather live in a city, a small town or out in the country?
I took the photo at the top this post from North Head, Devonport, on Auckland’s North Shore, in 2006. You may notice that it’s also the background image for this blog.
The United Nations estimated that by 2008 half the world’s population lived in cities. Other estimates suggest that three-quarters of the population of developed countries lives in cities, while only 44 percent of the population of less-developed countries do. [source]
The precise definition of what a city is varies from place to place, even within some countries (such as, different US states have different methods and mechanisms for creating cities). Nevertheless, at a minimum, a city generally refers to a specific geographic location governed by one government. That means it’s not a city’s metropolitan region, which is bigger in both area and population.
New Zealand has a useful definition to illustrate this, saying that in New Zealand, cities “must have a minimum population of 50,000, be predominantly urban in character, be a distinct entity and a major centre of activity within the region.” This is contained within the Local Government Act 1974.
Just today Auckland, my current home, reached a population of 1.5 million. It’s a very big deal for us and for New Zealand.
Auckland is by far New Zealand’s largest city. It has roughly a third of the entire country’s population—though that’s not enough to make the list of the 100 most populated cities in the world. The current Auckland Council was created by the New Zealand Parliament out of seven former city and district councils, and came into being in November 1, 2010. It covers 4,894 square kilometres (1,889.6 square miles), a fact that means Auckland is in the 20 largest cities by area (again, this refers only to cities and their specific geographic areas of jurisdiction, not to metropolitan regions).
The distinction between city and region is an important one, and not as obvious as one might think. For example, when a Kiwi talks about the population of, say, Los Angeles, Chicago or New York, they’re almost always talking about the region, not the legally defined city (until last year, the same would have been true if they were talking about Auckland; now, of course, city and region are the same).
This distinction shows up something that’s very different in North America and New Zealand: Suburbs. In North America, a suburb is an outlying town, not legally part of the city, but within commuting distance of it. In New Zealand, a suburb is a geographic area within the city—analogous to a neighbourhood in an American city. New Zealand suburbs are used by New Zealand Post for delivering mail and also by delivery companies.
I was born in a small city, grew up in suburbs, went to university in a small city, moved to Chicago, then to Auckland (twice—interrupted by a couple years spent in a small, rural town). I’ve learned through this that I’m a city boy. It doesn’t have to be a big city, and I don’t have to live in the heart of it, just as long as it has all the urban amenities a city has to offer. I particularly appreciate being able to get a service done or go get something in particular (like, for example, a part to repair something in the house) without having to drive hours or order online. I also enjoy the excitement and multi-culturalism that a city offers—that and all the entertainment and food options.
So, add it all up, and the city is best for me. I know plenty of people for whom that’s not true, though. So, what about you? Given your choice, would you rather live in a city, a small town or out in the country?
I took the photo at the top this post from North Head, Devonport, on Auckland’s North Shore, in 2006. You may notice that it’s also the background image for this blog.
Labels:
ABC Wednesday,
AmeriNZ,
Auckland,
Life in NZ
A busy hiatus
I hadn’t planned on being absent from all my social media stuff, in particular this blog or my podcasts, but things got in the way. Actually, it was far more than that sounds.
We’d long planned some projects to the house this summer, chief among them, having the house painted. In addition, we’re making some small repairs, finishing a few projects and, while we’re at it, having a major de-clutter. All of which is far more involved—and tiring—than I ever could have imagined. On this plus side, I’ve lost a couple kilos over the first two weeks of this project, and expect I’ll lose more this week.
This huge project is nearly completed—just in time for real, real life to resume as I head back to work.
And that’s what I did on my summer vacation.
We’d long planned some projects to the house this summer, chief among them, having the house painted. In addition, we’re making some small repairs, finishing a few projects and, while we’re at it, having a major de-clutter. All of which is far more involved—and tiring—than I ever could have imagined. On this plus side, I’ve lost a couple kilos over the first two weeks of this project, and expect I’ll lose more this week.
This huge project is nearly completed—just in time for real, real life to resume as I head back to work.
And that’s what I did on my summer vacation.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Miss Piggy FTW
From the video description on YouTube:
“Kermit the Frog and Miss Piggy hit back at Fox News during a UK press conference following the London Premiere of their new film. Fox had publically criticized the film for supposedly pushing a 'dangerous liberal agenda' at kids.So, since Kermit says Miss Piggy’s comment will be “all over the Internet”, naturally I have to help make it so. Plus, she’s right, of course.
“Kermit mocks their blatant and pointless fear mongering before Miss Piggy offers her own opinion on Fox News.”
Tip o' the Hat to Joe.My.God.
Labels:
Media,
Movies,
Pop Culture,
US Politics,
Video,
Wingnuts,
Worth Quoting
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


