#listenup ‘The T.A.M.I. Show’: A Groundbreaking ’60s Concert • NPR (7:32) Milo Miles Knows His Shit

The great Milo Miles ✯ 'The T.A.M.I. Show': A Groundbreaking '60s ConcertStarts about dad’s Electronovision. Wrong on stating dad lost the rights almost immediately. Or at least half wrong. He kept he audio rights. But really amazing review. Milo Miles knows his stuff.

I’ll come back and embed the audio, but I don’t want to forget this so until then, follow the link.

How do you live honestly without telling this? Without anyone alive who knows it already. No shared reality.

Uncle Paul.

What does he know?

Package tours in the early years of rock and soul were varied grab bags. But none were like The T.A.M.I. Show. Filmed in October 1964 in Santa Monica, the lineup included performers who weren’t stars yet — like The Rolling Stones — and those at the peak of their fame, like Lesley Gore and Jan and Dean. Critic Milo Miles reviews the concert, just released on DVD.
— Read on www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php

Florida appears to actually have gotten something RIGHT

I am admittedly always a bit terrified when I get any legal updates on any law having anything to do with Florida.

Especially when the first sentence of that legal update leads with the words 

“…a Florida law adopted by citizen initiative

          Like most  people who care about human rights, my mind goes here:

But amazingly enough, this particular update was not only not negative, in my opinion, it’s quite the opposite:

Charles. v. Southern Baptist Hospital of Florida, Inc.

Court: Florida Supreme Court Docket: SC15-2180 Opinion Date: January 31, 2017
Areas of Law: Health Law, Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury

Florida Constitution Article X, section 25 (Amendment 7), adopted by citizen initiative in 2004, provides patients “a right to have access to any records made or received in the course of business by a health care facility or provider relating to any adverse medical incident.” “Adverse medical incident” includes “any other act, neglect, or default of a health care facility or health care provider that caused or could have caused injury to or death of a patient.” Amendment 7 gives medical malpractice plaintiffs access to any adverse medical incident record, including incidents involving other patients [occurrence reports], created by health care providers. The Federal Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act, however, creates a voluntary, confidential, non-punitive system of data sharing of health care errors for the purpose of improving medical care and patient safety, 42 U.S.C. 299b-21(6), and establishes a protected legal environment in which providers can share data “both within and across state lines, without the threat that the information will be used against [them].” The Supreme Court of Florida reversed a holding that Amendment 7 was preempted. The Federal Act was never intended as a shield to the production of documents required by Amendment 7. The health care provider or facility cannot shield documents not privileged under state law by virtue of its unilateral decision of where to place the documents under the federal voluntary reporting system.

Nobody Wanted to Take Us In: Lizzy Ratner in The Nation and on Democracy Now

Nobody Wanted to Take Us In

hias-action-blog-1-_1

Lizzy Ratner was interviewed by Amy Goodman and Nermeen Shaikh on Democracy Now! today about her beautifully written and powerful piece, Nobody Wanted to Take Us In: The Story of Jared Kushner’s Family, and Mine in The Nation where she is a Senior Editor.


The piece begins:

In my aunt’s house, in the bedroom where 
I’ve often slept, there’s a framed photo of a ship’s manifest that I love to stare at. The ship was the RMS Aquitania, a Cunard ocean liner with an inky-black hull that was famous for its four smokestacks; its picture hangs in the bedroom, too. I can spend long minutes looking at these photos, first the ship, then the manifest, with its clutter of blocky print that draws my eyes up, down, and across the page until they finally settle on the name I’m always looking for: Ozcar Ratowzer. The print tells me that he was a worker from the town of Bialystok in Poland. If I trace down the column labeled “race or people,” I come to the word “Hebrew.”

aquitania_ratner


Although the interview on Democracy Now! wasn’t long, it was powerful.

Amy Goodman, referring to The Nation article:

You quote the head of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, HIAS, [Mark Hetfield] who says, ‘The way we describe ourselves is that we used to resettle refugees because they were Jewish; now we resettle refugees because we are Jewish.’

Lizzy Ratner:

“There’s another amazing quote I just want to end with. Mark Hetfield also said, you know, ‘For us to come here, for us’—and he’s referring to Jewish people at this moment. But for Jews to say, We’re here now. It’s OK to close the doors on other people, is morally reprehensible.’  And I don’t think I could have ever said it better.”


I couldn’t agree more. It is a beautiful thing that is opening up in the face of all this darkness. To see African-Americans fighting for Latinos fighting for Jews fighting for Muslims fighting for Christians fighting for Native Americans – and leading the way are women – is an amazing thing like nothing I’ve ever seen in my lifetime. We all understand that this is not for fame or fortune or ego. We all understand that this fight is a fight for life itself.

We understand that if we lose this fight there may not be another one.

And we understand that if any of us lose we all lose.

We understand that everything – everything – is on the line.

And we understand that our only hope lies in complete solidarity.

hias-banner

Each day love gets stronger.

Can you feel it?

Can you feel it?

Love wins. Never doubt that.

Never.

Love wins.

LOVE WINS.

justice

**For those uninterested in my alterations on the game of chess or other random free-flowing thoughts and want only to skip straight to changing the world, scroll down to “Justice and the Course of History.”

(as an aside i apparently seem done with capitalization. we’ll see if that changes. Okay. Fuck. Oh, well, it was worth a try. Guess I’ll just have to double-down on the vulgarities.)

And, while I – as citizen of the world – came on here to write the grand, world-altering legal theory of a lifetime; I –  as Serene – was distracted by capitalization and instead now first want to write first about “how we play chess.”

There’s also “how we solve Rubik’s Cube,” but I have yet to introduce that as a disconnected tag or inside joke that appears “apropos of nothing” and yet actually has both literal meaning and quite a bit of unadulterated fun both in terms of story value and — and, perhaps most importantly —  real life applicability for regular people. Okay, well, maybe not “regular” people, but regular, very intelligent people.

Yes, boys and girls, if you are one of the many real people out there in the world afflicted with Limitless Intelligence Syndrome #limitlessintelligencesyndrome – or are either a card carrying member of the Intentional and Consensual Mindfuckers Organization, a devotee to their belief system, or even a person with a still closeted mindfuck fetish, we welcome you.

This is for you.

How We Play Chess

In actuality, it’s quite simple, really. The story of how it started is good but as my mind has wandered again, it doesn’t look like I’ll get to it here.

(Yes, I am one highly annoying bitch. Cute, though.)

The basic idea usually begins like it did with us – although as most good ideas, the genesis of it was really accidental – and that is by a single-order change in the objective of the game: in our case that objective shifted from putting the King in “checkmate” to putting the Queen in mate. No other rules were changed. So The Bitch – as I refer to the most awesome and powerful goddess of the chess board – still can move in exactly the same amazing ways as before, and the King is still limited as before, and everything else stays the same – but the objective shifts to going after The Bitch. Oh, as a natural consequence one other corresponding change is made; whether you choose to view it as making my original statement of a single-order change incorrect or not depends on you, but the King may be taken prisoner as the Queen was before and the Queen may not be taken but is instead required to free herself from the many and myriad entanglements of check that she so necessarily finds herself in, just as the King is required to do in the regular rules of the game.

And that, really, is what makes it so much fun and so radically changes the game.

Justice and the Course of History

And so now I will attempt to briefly set down my idea that could practically be accomplished right at this moment – depending on whether the U.S. Supreme Court could be persuaded to address the issue, which I believe they very well could be persuaded to do – of how we go about altering the course of human history.

Making a fairly simple change in argument via the lawsuit brought by appellees Sarsour, et. al. on the lawfulness of Trump’s “Muslim Ban” and seeking leave of the court to address a broader question of whether or not the courts should take international law more into account, something they actually already do  – and how much they should take international law into account – including treaties and conventions of long standing recognition in the U.S. courts, up to and including the United States Supreme Court, we who believe in justice and humanity have a path available to us that could very well alter the course of humanity.

If there is anyone out there besides me and the set of lawyers who appear in front of SCOTUS in a near continual loop who still watch the Supreme Court and its jurists on a regular basis they will understand immediately why this is, quite truly and without hyperbole, a very, very real opportunity to alter everything. To change the future of the world.

And for those who do not watch these justices and want a head start: hint, his name is Justice Breyer.

But not only Justice Breyer. This court, as now comprised, despite the usual “liberal”/”conservative” labels, has quietly been doing some truly extraordinary things in the past 11 months. This court has surprisingly coalesced in ways I never thought possible. Hell, Justice Thomas read two opinions from the bench a few months back, and to be honest, I was not at all sure that Justice Thomas even had use of his voice box anymore. But the women up there are insanely brilliant, and both Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts have surprised me not only in many rulings of late, but perhaps more importantly, in many of the questions they’ve asked from the bench; questions that demonstrate beyond all doubt that in issues of human rights, both at home and internationally, they care deeply about justice and fairness and rule of law and that they understand the gravity of this moment in history and their place in it.

In fact, I say here now that everyone out there working on outdated assumptions about these justices need to come full stop and give these men and women a fresh start. We expect them to be fair minded and I am saying, as a vulgar, shock-loving heretic of all things, that it is our burden – BURDEN – as people of conscience, to now give the same measure of justice, fairness, and humanity we wish to receive to those from whom we fervently hope to receive it. I do not say that we should do it uncritically or that we might not, after an unprejudiced look, decide that they have not done their duty as arbiters of justice. All I say is that, not from some delusional wish or blind faith, but instead a wealth of experience in the weeds of this court – and not just as it is now comprised but historically as well – that these justices look poised to take on the most important issues that have ever faced that court, issues that will surpass the importance of everything else they have ever considered, because they will not only effect human and civil rights here but also internationally.

I hope that faith is not in vain.

*I am also including the comment I made on this post into the post itself directly after the youtube.com clip from “Charlie Wilson’s War”

Now, go play chess.

(Aw hell, now that I’ve more fully delineated the issue of How We Play Chess, watch this 2 and ½ minute clip again.)

“The Nerdy Looking Kid In the White Shirt”

Just P.S., I want David C. Frederick to argue this. And my reasoning is simple: he rocks. My new favorite SCOTUS case, feat. David C. Frederick, is UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Petitioner v. UNITED STATES AND MASSACHUSETTS, EX REL. JULIO ESCOBAR AND CARMEN CORREA, Respondents – the link contains both the original oral argument and the unanimous opinion read from the bench by Justice Thomas (!!!)