For some reason, I can't find this in the written media. I'm probably not trying hard enough. It's worth checking out Keith Olbermann's report (4/7) on the warrantless wiretapping under Bush, and the discouraging, disappointing and disgusting response by the Obama administration.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/30116228#30096316
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/30116228#30096358
If it was a bad thing when Bush was doing it, it's even worse under the new administration. Tyranny is not Change. And Despotism is still evil, know matter how benevolent it may appear.
Doing one really shitty thing after a whole bunch of good things doesn't make it smell any less vile. Clean up your act, President Obama!!!
(Here's Olbermann's continuation of the report tonight (4/8): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/30116228#30116228)
UPDATE: I have asked that you all police yourselves, so that I do not have to. After reading the last few comments on the last post, I fear I may have been asking too much. I have three options - turn on the comment monitoring, delete offensive posts (who decides?), or discontinue the blog. While the third option makes me sad to even consider, the first two are total and complete pains in the ass and will quickly lead to number three out of sheer annoyance. Please, please, please (did I say 'please'?) act like the grown-ups I know you can be. If you don't like what someone posts, make a strong argument in favor of your point of view - don't let the conversation devolve into perceived personalities. This experience has been way more positive than not - but lately...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
75 comments:
JM, this was in the Chronicle, referring to your written medium remark, yesterday or the day before. I only read the headline and about 3 paragraphs but it was there.
To be honest, I'm kind of on the fence with this. I find it a *gateway* to privacy violations but I don't find the wiretapping *act* in itself necessarily that big a deal.
But, as I've always stated, I am more than willing to listen to REASONABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
discussions on the matter.
REASONABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Say. Did I use more exclamation points on the first REASONABLE or the second?
;)
If the information is there, the reasonable presumption is that it will be used against even those political enemies whose dissent respects the Constitution. Think of MLK.
*
The Olberman clips did not mention whether Obama is providing protection for data mining operations and the companies that supply the tech to the US govt.
*
It's possible that the Courts will rule against the new controversial provisions because Holder won't go to the mat to defend them.
Also add the fact that people now knowing that the govt can accumulate information on them could intimidate people into silence as they simply do not want to be hassled with a prima facie case being made against them on the basis the out-of-context and misunderstood information picked up by data mining and other surveillance techniques. Power works not simply by and through its exercise but by the threat of its use.
Ted - I looked, must have passed right over it!
Here's the thing: Bush started his program before 9/11/01, which negates the whole 'national security' argument. A lot of people were speculating that he was using the technology to spy on his political enemies. By expanding on these powers, don't we have to question President Obama's motives???
no one (Hartal?) - well, he did vote to protect the private corporations (AT&T) from law suits...
It was possible to make excuses for the retroactive telecom immunity. One could hope that Obama, going forward, would restore civil liberties. He still does seem to be putting an end to torture and the zone of lawlessness created paradoxically by a perverse interpretation of the law. One can only hope that Holder will give a weak defense to his own claim that the govt can't be sued as long as no willful disclosure of data gathered through warrantless surveillance (data mining?) is made. One can still hope that the FISA court (FISC?) won't be circumvented very often or even at all. But once I saw Jeffrey Sachs explode the Geithner Summers bailout plan, I started losing hope. The West Coast Obama partisans are getting slapped in the face, and we are not even talking about how the UAW supporters of Obama are feeling.
But JM, here's why I still don't see why this is a major issue. You state that Bush was possibly using the technology to spy on his political enemies.
Okay. That's...what? Spying on his *political* enemies. Abuse of power, sure. Some might argue "priveleges or benefits of rank". Not saying I agree with that. But my point is..so what? Political enemies who are not violating or breaking any laws? That might give someone an edge during an election to sputter scuttlebut. But what else?
Nasty. Rude. Cheating. Sure.
But where's the *atrocity*?
My only *possible* issue and I stated this before was about a possible gateway to abuse of privacy to a larger extent, a valid concern but beyond that...who cares?
I just don't see how the act of listening in on phone conversations or email correspondences is such a revolting travesty unless you've really got something to hide.
Granted, in a sci-fi or thriller movie, something might be misconstrued and your front door will be broken in by government thugs but overall..does that really happen so often in real life? I'm sure I can be given an example of that in Nazi Germany or the old SSR and even here in America?
But seriously. Is it some sort of prevelant factor in our day to day lives?
I'm not saying it's a wonderful thing. I'm just saying, as long as it doesn't provide a gateway (I've said that 3 time now, haven't I?) to more extreme privacy violations, I'm just not seeing the big deal. In my life? The worst that can happen is embarrasment. Not criminal incarceration.
But again, I'm willing to hear counterpoints. I'm not sure I'm right.
Or even making any sense.
;)
Ted, you're fucking kidding right? Have you ever seen THE LIVES OF OTHERS?
YC, generally I ignore posts by people who don't register but your's was so short, I noticed it after I saw my post register.
No.
I didn't see that movie. But I'm well aware what it was about. Won an Oscar if I recall. In fact, it's in my que.
But, if memory serves, that was not a documentary.
It was a movie. About a communist regime. And about how a "gateway" (4th time) can be accomplished.
To paraphrase you, did you not read my fucking previous posts?
These things. They do happen.
Tell me. How many times has this
happened to anyone in your life? Anyone you know? How do you think how you lead your life that you will be incarcerated by the way you lead your life if the government watched and listended to all you've done.
You got something to hide? Then chances are you *would* hide them.
It was a fucking movie.
My guess is it was a good one.
But it was a fucking movie about a different fucking government
(just so everyone knows, for the record, I was trying to catch up the word "fuck" with the word "gateway" in my posts on this thread)
;)
Ted, the government has a computer monitoring every e-mail and every international phone call. It's evil and it's unconstitutional. I also took a vow to uphold the Constitution, same as Obama. Maybe it's like Hartal said, that the administration will back off or maybe Obama is bushbot, bent on destroying humanity.
So I suppose Ted has no problem with McCarthyism because they didn't put dissenters in gas chambers. I simply can't believe an educated American wrote this.
>
"Spying on his *political* enemies. Abuse of power, sure. Some might argue "priveleges or benefits of rank". Not saying I agree with that. But my point is..so what? Political enemies who are not violating or breaking any laws?"
TedSpe - my sense of humor was formed by SNL in the 70's. You certainly are not the first person to utter that remark in my general direction. ;-P
I have nothing to hide from anyone. I haven't committed a crime in years! But, I will never, ever allow someone to eavesdrop on my conversations. Also, under the First Amendment, the people have to right to address grievance to the government. So, by saying we can't sue the government for spying on us, it is an infringement upon our First Amendment rights, as well as the Fourth & Sixth.
You don't have to be a criminal to resent being treated like one...
YC, why do you have to post directly before I post so I am forced to read your posts after my posts have been posted?
;)
First off, no McCarthyism didn't always put dissenters in gas chambers.
THEY PUT THEM IN ELECTRIC CHAIRS TOO! FUCKING BURNED THEM.
HORRIBLY!
Since you like using movie or play references, did you ever see ANGELS IN AMERICA or CITIZEN COHN? I know what happened 50-60 years ago!!
50-60 years ago.
Believe it or not, time marches on.
This is not even close to the same thing. Maybe it was Bush's intent, being the self-rightious maniac that he was/is but it didn't happen.
Couldn't in this day and age.
Then you wrote "I simply can't believe an educated American wrote this."
When did I ever say I was an educated American?
Look, I've said this word over and over again.
Fuck.
I'm sorry. I meant "gateway"
Okay.
Seriously.
I realize and have stated that there is a danger of over procumated executive privelege. All I've stated is that the reading of emails and the hearing of phone calls of "suspected" possible terrorist contacts have not caused anyone, to date, to be incarcerated, tortured, questioned, detained, violated or any other such thing.
If I'm wrong, please tell me. Please tell me how this rude but vacuous procedure has harmed anyone.
Anyone that you know. Anyone that you've heard of. Anyone that was wrongly succumbed to anything that harmed them professionally or personally.
Please. Tell me. I want to know.
As far as I can tell, the whole thing is just...mean
What did happen? Silencing of Muslim Americans by threatening visits from the FBI who revealed that they knew details about peoples' personal lives. Had the effect of chilling dissent towards about our Iraq, Israel, and Afghani policies.
*
Widespread political firings throughout the different departments, especially Justice
*
suppression of data of environmental risks on the grounds that that would threaten national security
*
infinite detention of hundreds of people often turned in for bounties
*
use of govt funds to promote policies, such as the hiring of Armstrong Williams in defense of No Child Left behind
*
use of Homeland Security to raid worksites where illegal aliens were taking part in union movements
*
the criminalization of people who unwittingly contributed to organizations that had been arbitrarily classified as blah, blah, blah.
*
infiltration of peaceful groups of dissent
It was the sickness about all this that Obama was elected to heal.
Yes the national security threats are real especially as jehadis will turn their attention to the US itself as Obama brings the troops home from Iraq in the next two years, but people are rightfully worried about status of the privacy rights and rights of assembly that they need to voice dissent and carry out legal direct action.
There may be reason to worry about Holder as he may have been one of the voices in the Clinton administration to counsel against going after Pinochet, and perhaps he could be bought by the tech companies that want data mining carried out--after all, he went along with the Marc Rich pardon.
Olberman and Maddow will be giving President Obama hell for many months to come, I suspect. Still hope we are surprised.
I'm with ferrethead on this one. Sucks big time.
BTW, the baseball crack was a joke.
I think the FISA approach was perfectly adequate to ensure good intelligence with proper checks and balances, and so I am unhappy that this Administration has continued the prior warrantless wiretapping policy.
However, I'm not surprised that it has done so, given that (1) Obama is at his core a centrist and (2) the center on issues of state secrets vs. constitutional rights has moved to the right in the last 50 years or so. I don't really blame Obama, in the sense that I can understand why he's taken this action, but I still think it's wrong, and it should still be stopped.
FWIW, my recollection of the article that was on SFGate is that, in the instant case, the Administration was only defending the prior administration's policy with regard to absolving the communications carriers from liability to third parties. This particular issue is somewhat less problematic for me in that those companies were acting at the behest of the goverment. In the end, responsibility for these acts should fall on the government, and I would focus my attention there.
There is always an element of trust in others that must exist for our government to operate properly. Too much distrust of others and you end up with Nixon and others who believe in "l'etat, c'est moi." Fortunately, our founders built checks and balances into the system, in particular through the judiciary, buttressed by the idea that judges are independent arbiters of the law, to allow for such excesses to be challenged. I expect that we will continue to see court challenges of these actions in the coming years. As such, I worry when the courts are seen as too partisan.
"we have a president more concerned with programs than principles"
The professor's comment (in the second Olbermann clip) rings true.
On the one hand, none of this is new. I knew leftists terrorized by COINTELPRO. Intrusive surveillance was one of the lesser crimes the government committed during that campaign. Mid-80s, first time I spoke to a prominent union side labor lawyer on the phone about a nasty organizing situation he said, "I assume my phone is tapped; you should too."
On the other hand, given the complexity of communications today, and the power of technology to manipulate and monitor, we're in a whole new world. The EFF does good work, I think. (Wanted to end on a positive lawyer note, you know.)
FH, it's quite hilarious that you actually goaded people on to hijack hartal's identity for the purposes of making apparently vicious self-hating comments but inveighed against such posting when the victim became poor old xootie. Hypocrite! And did you not rise to the defense of a verbose and misinformed Ted Spe who actually made a physical threat against hartal.
Looking back over the posts, one could also guess that you will not ban unregistered comments because you have used the name "qua palimpsest" yourself to attack hartal in manifestly unfair ways. Is that true?
I only post as myself. When I open this page, I automatically click on 'sign in' so I don't have to dick around with my screen name.
You have the right to call me a hypocrite, you also have the right to not post here. I am two steps from not giving a shit.
I will say this: Since Hartal began posting here, the 'sense of humor meter' has been barely registering. Things have gotten unpleasant, and very personal. It's unlikely I would ever block Hartal from posting - hell, I didn't even block gina, and god knows I would have had a lot of support.
If you don't like how I run this blog - you have a few choices, among them: don't read it, read it but don't comment, comment and complain about the blog, or comment as a responsible, reasonable person. Wow - I just got another step closer to not giving a shit what you do!!!
The sense of humor dropped? You didn't appreciate the joke about sex and masturbation? Or the invention of the self-mocking Gina Oracaqua? And you can't admit that my posts on this blog entry are massively more informed than Ted Spe's?
You have been a hypocrite. And I don't know why.
At any rate, here's something that Obama may do--release the torture memos--that has the Republicans threatening to go nuclear, i.e. block nominations.
Scott Horton, from the Daily Beast:
But in the past week, questions about Obama’s commitment to transparency have mounted. On April 2, the Justice Department was expected to make public a set of four memoranda prepared by the Office of Legal Counsel, long sought by the American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy organizations in a pending FOIA litigation. The memos, authored by then-administration officials and now University of California law professor John Yoo, federal appellate judge Jay Bybee and former Justice Department lawyer Stephen Bradbury, apparently grant authority for the brutal treatment of prisoners, including waterboarding, isolated confinement in coffin-like containers, and “head smacking.” The stakes over release of the papers are increasingly high. Yoo and Bybee are both targets of a criminal investigation in a Spanish court probing the torture of five Spanish citizens formerly held in Guantánamo; also named in the Spanish case are former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and three other Bush lawyers. Legal observers in Spain consider the Bush administration lawyers at serious risk of indictment, and the memos, once released, could be entered as evidence in connection with their prosecution. Unlike the torture memos that are already public, these memos directly approve specific torture techniques and therefore present a far graver problem for their authors.
The release of the memos that the Senate Republicans want to suppress was cleared by Attorney General Eric Holder and White House counsel Greg Craig, and then was stopped when “all hell broke loose” inside the Obama administration, according to an article by Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff. Newsweek attributes internal opposition to disclosure of the Bush-era torture memos to White House counterterrorism adviser and former CIA official John O. Brennan, who has raised arguments that exposure of the memoranda would run afoul of policies protecting the secrecy of agency techniques and has also argued that the memos would embarrass nations like Morocco, Jordan, Pakistan, Tunisia and Egypt, which have cooperated closely with the CIA in its extraordinary renditions program. Few informed independent observers, however, find much to credit in the Brennan objections because the techniques are now well-known, as is the role of the cooperating foreign intelligence services—any references to which would in any event likely be redacted before the memoranda are released. Moreover, the argument that the confidence of those engaged in torture—serious criminal conduct under international and domestic law—should be kept because they would be “embarrassed” if it were to come out borders on comic.
"my posts on this blog entry are massively more informed than Ted Spe's"
Massive, that's for sure! Like enormous dumps.
I'm taking my real sign-in identity and ole qua here and going on vacation. May not come back.
hartal, yogi -- you're ruining what was a pretty good thing. That be my view.
(Hey, did I mention my incommensurable sorrow?)
Dear hostess, I will support you in whatever decision you make. I will also try to be mindful of my own resolutions.
We have a tendency to think in extremes when it comes to assessing violations of our rights. To oppress another, you don't have to resort to drastic measures. I believe (perhaps I'm mistaken) that a great majority of civil rights violations go unnoticed by the general public, possibly even the victims. It can be something as simple as an unfavorable comment in an email or phone conversation to prompt retaliative action that is practically invisible. Another conversation reveals that the victim is looking for work-- a simple interview appointment setup call. An intercepted resume email attachment reveals the name and number of a previous boss. A well timed, spoofed call "from" that boss leads to a seemingly innocuous conversation between the potential employer and a person he assumes to have experience with the job seeker. The "former boss" lets slip enough of a damning comment to ensure a job offer will not be extended. Modern, high tech blacklisting accomplished. Nobody knows anything about it.
And who's going to argue for the poor sap whose computer is seized and is 'found to contain' kiddie porn? How hard would it be to plant that? You could do it remotely. You probably don't have the money for lawyers that Pete Townshend does. Your life is toast. There's just way too much wrong with this kind of lattitude.
Oh, and to add to my previous, long post... As I've said before, I'm all for censorship free exchanges, but that doesn't stop me for noticing that however informed a poster may be, part of the joy of blogging is in the affirmations, chuckles, and simply extensions of points one makes by... get ready for it... fellow posters. I notice that posters who don't receive this interplay resort to the embarrassing practice of pointing out how clever they are to everyone who "missed it the first time"; they congratulate themselves, and become their own social circle, with hostility toward the larger one. This possibly makes things better in the poster's own mind, but no matter how many times it is repeated, to the larger circle, whether equally educated, informed, clever or not, it just gets more embarrassing. Can I get an 'amen'?!
Amen, brother.
I also want to repeat my suggestion that people get a Google account to ensure that their id's aren't hijacked by other posters. Of course, people shouldn't be hijacking other people's id's, but it's an apparent fact of life these days, so in addition to admonishing folks not to misbehave, I would ask folks also to get those accounts to ensure that your id doesn't get hijacked. This is sort of like those old PSAs about not leaving your keys in the car: "Don't help a good kid go bad."
No the problem as Kristof and others have laid bare is that people use the internet to create little self-affirming communities and screen out different and rival points of view. I challenged dsgonzale6 on illegal immigration. Contestation and disagreement are important and should not be circumscribed by the need to maintain friendly chit chat at all times. That's not how disagreement and democracy work. It's important to have a thick skin, but it's also important to have a non tolerance policy towards violent threats. That's also how democracy and debate and disagreement work.
And no the real threat is not the planting of kiddie porn and the setting up of dummie employers. Those kind of scenarios weaken the opposition, and plays into TedSpe's attempts to minimize the threat to democracy because there is no evidence of such things happening. It's paranoid, and makes the opposition the tin hat crowd. However what I said has already obtained.
More false premises. It also helps to know the difference between a violent threat and an expression of frustration.
Frustration should never be expressed as a violent threat. Pretty simple, even a Stanford lawyer should be able to understand it, but you're a landlord's--oops commercial real estate-- lawyer, right? So who knows?
Uh-oh... dsgonzale6 has flown off the handle again...
Yes and you're wearing your tin hat again
HEY! NOBODY, AND I MEAN NOBODY CALLS MY FRIEND DSGONZALE6 A COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE LAWYER! YOU'RE LUCKY TO BE ALIVE RIGHT THIS MOMENT, PAL!
You'll also note that Ted expressed his opinion and FH disagreed with it without it turning into something personal. The common factor among the disagreements that have turned personal here is your presence in the discussion.
But FH did not do a very good job of showing what real threats may materialize as a result of the sacrifice of privacy. I pointed to concrete examples because I wanted a thorough refutation of TedSpe's terrible position.
Okay, now I'm laughing.
wv: intocryn :-X
Yes, we all understand that you approach life the way Sherman approached Atlanta.
And Gina will tell you what an idyllic place the moonlight/magnolia/mint juleps antebellum South was
Q.E.D.
Forgive me, FH, I try so hard to resist temptation....
So I am supposed to apologize for giving a real list of what the government has done as opposed to providing the tin hat scenarios of TooSense? That was personal? You need to reread what I wrote in this thread. And you need to read what you wrote in defense of your position on self-deportation. That was personal.
Nobody's asking you to apologize for anything, we know better than to engage in a futile act. Your views on what are personal are as messed up as your views on the difference between facts and opinions and the difference between violent threats and expressions of frustration.
Slow down, guys. I'm still busy re-reading hartal no one's previous posts.
So, uh... no one... how's that job search coming along?
Come on folks! TedSpe, channeling a Bavarian Valley girl circa 1939, makes a case for evil and all you guys do is bash Hartal. Mick LaSalle makes an incredibly ill-informed comment about Obama, Hartal calls him on it, and you bash him. LaSalle then stifles free speech on SF Gate blogs by banning Hartal and nobody there stood up for what is right. Is there any wonder how despots get into power?
And Hartal is correct that he is contributing more on-topic and informed commentary than anyone else on this blog, including the hostess, and you want to ban him here as well? Maybe Hartal isn't too good with jokes, but there are plenty of hip snarksters to pick up the slack.
I see Gina has accused me and Hartal (we aren't the same BTW) of ruining this blog. I don't think it's ruined, and Hartal is by far the least mean spirited person here, with the possible execption of FH.
Yogi, who are the first and second runner ups, for least mean spirited, I mean?
You would certainly be near the top Too_Sense, but it's kind of like ranking the most ethical members of the Bush administration.
Yogi, you sure know how to hurt a guy.
Am I above suzagoob in the rankings?
Oh what the hell here are the final results for the Brushfires of Freedom Bonhamie Award.
Ferrethead
Too_Sense
Hartal
DSG
Lefty
TedSpe
Michael
Yogi
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Gina
Xootsuit
You film buffs will know this. What it Fort Apache, where Henry Fonda played a craven officer who led his soldiers into a massacre? First thing the NA enemy did was put an arrow through the bugler's chest. Cut communication.
The fact that vandals, by cutting a single fiber optic cable in southern Silicon Valley this morning, were able to shut down all land-line and wireless phone and internet service in one of the most high-tech intense places in the world, sure gives me pause.
Oh, and by the way, all of you at the top of my list get a can of Bon Ami, too!
Yogi, you're so abrasive.
xoot, this is exactly why I keep the HAM radio set up in the bunker.
HAM radio, TS? The best kind.
You're lucky. I'm stuck with 1510 AM for my KPIG access. And, due to the vandalism this morning, that feed died.
Have you heard the cut released from Dylan's new album? David Hidalgo plays accordian. KPIG's playing it.
Haven't heard it yet, but I do like Hidalgo. I'll keep an ear out.
Just like the Obama administration.
sigh...I'm between DSG and Lefty? Well, I guess I can be kind of mean sometimes, but only when I'm provoked. And I don't think DSG is mean at all. AND I think that constantly crying wolf when it comes to inflating random comments into "threats" of physical violence is absolutely ridiculous.
But I guess that's kind of a mean thing to say. Oh well, I'm human.
How's the wedding songlist coming, suza?
eh, TS, I haven't been able to focus much on it because work was so busy. I have to meet with the DJ sometime in the next month or so, so I guess we'll talk about it then.
Mr. S has suggested "Fade into You" by Mazzy star and although I like that song, I was thinking of something a little meatier in terms of lyrics, you know?
Any more suggestions?
You want meaty? How about 'Rawhide'?
Unison -Björk
Love - The Sundays
Wouldn't It Be Nice? - Beach Boys
Speak Low - Kurt Weill
...and for Ferret's wedding:
I Love My Jean - Camera Obscura
;-)
WT - batting eyelashes
Suza - I don't know how danceable it is - though David Byrne did a nice turn with a lamp - "This Must Be The Place" by the Talking Heads is a personal favorite...
Suza, thank you, though I definitely can be mean, I don't deny it. Don't forget "She".
FH - Mr. S LOVES "this must be the place!" Talking Heads are awesome.
I still like "She" but I don't know if I'm going to get him to love it.
I'm still leaning towards "Love is the Tender Trap" by Frank Sinatra. It'll be fun to dance to. Ugh - that reminds me that we have to sign up for dance classes! ARGH! Another thing to add to the list...
yogi, baby, you placed me pretty high up on your least mean spirited ranking.
Look, calm down. We can make a deal.
YC - book your new name, and I will delete any comments from the imposter.
Faux Yogi - while I probably wouldn't use the same words, I have to agree with YC. Unnecessary shit disturbing is pretty much the last thing we need right now. Into the corner with you, and don't come out until you are sorry. (Wow, channeling my mom...scary!)
I love my little doggie so much. She is the cutest, sweetest shivering bundle of love EVER. Even her poops are small and dainty. She loves people so much that she thinks every stanger that walks by on the street is a new friend. If someone has their car door open, she will wait to see if they are going to invite her in for a car ride.
She has the cutest little prance and people on the street stop to say how cute and sweet she is.
She doesn't much care for other dogs though. So far there's only one that she didn't get ruffled by. I've heard that about Chihuahuas - they only like other chihuahuas.
Still, she's a sweet little snuggle bug and my only fear is that she will burrow into a blanket and we won't see her and she'll get sat upon.
Suza - give your little sweetheart some special belly rubs from her Auntie Ferret, okay?
FH, it's a deal.
:)
I also secretly feed her people food when Mr. S isn't looking. He gets mad at me for it, but I feel like if I'm just going to throw my left-overs away I may as well give them to her.
I'm trying to get her to be more sneaky about it - unfortunately she still gets up on her hind legs to see what I'm eating when Mr. S is around. How do you teach a dog to keep a secret?
wv:aleshe
O the "Flame" thread, there hasn't been too much flaming, but there HAS been concern expressed over the health of Twinfan/Michael. JMF, do you know anything? My sincere best wishes go out to TF...
I second WT.
Twinnie/Michael is going to Davis for some treatments. It sounds like it's going to be rather taxing and I think he's going to be away from home for a bit, as he mentioned getting a dogsitter in an e-mail he sent me.
If you promise to send him your best wishes - and only positive messages - here is his e-mail: twinfan1@hotmail.com
I'm not sure if he'll be checking it, but maybe his daughter will. Either way, it couldn't hurt to send positive, healing thoughts in his general direction.
Sorry about those, I'm having a hard time signing in, and I don't want to post under any other SN, for obvious reasons.
What I wanted to say was: Thanks Ferret! I sent Twinnie a little get well note, I hope he returns to us soon.
WV: untyked (a word Gina mayn't approve of)
Post a Comment