unacknowledged

Confessions of a former user of geni.com

noreply@blogger.com (george) — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 04:36:00 +0000

I am interested in my family history. For a long time, I entered my family information in Family Tree Maker to keep track of my family. A few years ago, a family member started entering the family data on geni.com. I and others saw geni as great. It was online, so the latest family information was always available to all and it was a way that every member of the family could collaborate and enter the information he or she knew. Although the site invited people to become pro members, people who were free members could contribute a great deal. They could enter new information, they could resolve inconsistencies. People who did not know one another realized the they were related and the families grew. People entered information that they knew or data that interested them.

More information about geni can be found in the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geni.com#cite_note-8 , however as at November 1, 2011, geni.com changed their policies without informing me and probably most other users.

To quote the wikipedia entry, "As of November 1, 2011, Geni.com instituted new profile limitations. Basic (free) members can build a tree, or be linked to trees, with up to 100 connected people, rather than the limit of 5 generations previously possible. If a basic user is linked to an existing tree of more than 100 people, the user is now blocked from entering more people. A Plus membership increases the limit to 1,000 connected people. With a Pro subscription, there are no size restrictions to the number of added or connected profiles. Only plus and pro users can access the profile search utility. Only pro members can initiate a merge of trees (linking of duplicates). A pro member of the tree to be merged has to give her/his consent to the suggested merge.If a user interrupts the pro subscription, entered data can not be exported, and it is impossible to approve any merges involving any person for which the user is the manager. Many complaints are expressed about these changes."

In summary, the rules changed, taking away the rights of free (basic) members, and in effect, making it difficult or impossible for members to collaborate. Dissatisfied members expressed themselves on http://help.geni.com/entries/20640938 I added my own comments there and started my own comment page where I wrote:

I see that Geni is not interested in me or in growing. Notwithstanding Geni's many bugs and the inability to do what I need on Geni, I have added a significant number of people to my Geni file because I felt that people cooperating to create a family tree together can create something wonderful. But Geni is not interested in me or others like me and will not allow me to do anything on the site anymore, not merge, not add people, etc. My interest in Geni is dead. Geni sends me millions of emails, but does not send an email to inform me that they are changing the rules of the game. Disturbing unconscionable behaviour. I am saddened and disappointed. There are and will be other better places to go.

Which are these "better places"? I don't know because i have not done the research. I think that one thing we should do is start a free yahoo or google group called something like "unsatisfied users of geni looking for a better place." You can probably think of a better name. We can, as basic members, still write in to geni to publicize this group which can find a better place for all of us to hang our hats or plant our tree. We can also publicize it on Facebook, Google +, Twitter, our individual blogs and IM accounts, etc.

As if in reply to my request, Larry Dantus created a facebook page for former geni.com members, http://www.facebook.com/groups/297646710279780/ .

If like me, you are disappointed and dissatisfied, join that facebook page and let us together find an alternative, one that is free, online and collaborative.

Why register for the SBR Webinar?

noreply@blogger.com (george) — Sun, 30 May 2010 17:21:00 +0000

XBRL Canada put out this press release, a reminder for you to register for and attend the webinar on SBR (standard business reporting) in Canada. If you are interested in reducing the cost of compliance for businesses that must send business or financial information to the government and regulators, then you should attend.

Who should attend?

Members of the civil service, whose departments are involved in collecting financial and other business information from business
Members of the government, shadow cabinets, and their staff, whose departments are involved in collecting financial and other business information from business
Organizations which lobby for the reduction of red tape (the cost of compliance)
Those responsible for choosing people to be on the proposed Red Tape Reduction Commission.
Representatives (accountants, controllers, consultants, etc) of businesses which spend a significant amount of time and money reporting to government and regulators
Members of think tanks that present white papers or articles on the cost of compliance
Software developers which develop compliance or business reporting software
The business press

Find out how an SBR project can significantly reduce red tape and the cost of compliance. SBR is not the only answer, but it is a major step forward. It is important to understand how and why and then get all decision-makers on board.

Although the primary short-term goal is to reduce the cost of compliance, the FFIEC/FDIC call-report project shows that the use of XBRL alone (even without the other elements of SBR) has led to major savings of time and money to the agency, to the banks who report to them, and to the call report software developers. Significant benefits will derive from SBR when government departments and regulators collaborate and work together.

Press Release: SBR webinar: June 7, 2010

noreply@blogger.com (george) — Sun, 16 May 2010 16:54:00 +0000

The following press release was issued by XBRL Canada:

SBR Event - XBRL and Red Tape Reduction Initiatives

TORONTO, May 14 /CNW/ - XBRL Canada is holding a webinar on June 7, 2010 at 4:00PM Eastern on the topic of using XBRL to reduce red tape and cut the cost of government compliance.

In March 2010, Minister of Finance James Flaherty, announced the formation of a Red Tape Reduction Commission to look into ways to reduce the costs of "red tape" activities.

Similar initiatives in several other countries have led to large scale implementations of XBRL for the filing of information with Governments. These initiatives, referred to as Standard Business Reporting (SBR), involve the use of XBRL for all, or a significant portion, of government filings thus providing a single reporting standard, enabling multiple uses of the same tagged data and promoting consistency among the different filing systems. This initiative has led to significant cost savings and various other benefits which will be discussed in more detail at the webinar on June 7, 2010.

This is an excellent venue for concerned Members of Parliament and their staff, other members of government and business people to learn more about how XBRL can reduce the reporting burden currently placed on businesses in Canada.

Australia is a leading example of a country that is implementing an SBR program and Paul Madden, Director of the SBR program in Australia, will speak at this webinar. Canada can learn from the Australian XBRL experience with SBR implementation, as well as the impressive benefits they plan to gain from the initiative. George Farkas, Canadian XBRL consultant and a member of XBRL Canada, will speak on the parallels between Australia and Canada, and explain why SBR will work well in Canada.

Registration for the webinar is free and available via the XBRL Canada website at www.xbrl.ca.

XBRL Canada is supported and administered by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.

For further information: XBRL Canada, Gerald Trites, Project Director, (416) 602-3931, Email: gtrites@xbrl.ca.

Discrimination

noreply@blogger.com (george) — Tue, 11 May 2010 15:52:00 +0000

Norma Joseph, in her column in the Canadian Jewish News, has an excellent post Of wigs, hijabs, hats and niqabs.

She correctly complains about the laws that have been drafted to forbid either the hijab or niqab in public situations. I am not a Moslem, and although I do not know the religious standing of these garments in Islam, I have the feeling that they are a choice of some Moslem women and not required by the religion. Yet in our Western cultural context, we claim to allow for choice. Do we only allow for choice on "our" terms, when the choice is in accord with the choices of modern post-Christian secularism?

The choice of these women offends us because they have chosen differently. But that is the point of free choice.

Some claim that we are in a war with Islamism and this is a question of security. Even if this were true, are there no other means of identification more accurate without offending these women, e.g. fingerprinting, DNA, etc.? As Norma Joseph points out, security is not the issue. As far as I know, no terrorist or even terror suspect has been caught wearing the hijab or niqab.

In the Torah, we read of Amalek who attacked an innocent people who possessed no threat to them what so ever. Amalek started by attacking the old, the weary, the weak and stranglers, not the main body of the Jewish people. Is that not what these discriminatory laws are doing, attacking the weakest first? Discriminate first against the weakest, those who are least able to protest, those who have the fewest friends, the fewest defenders.

We have the responsibility to defend their choice, not because it is our choice, but because we allow others to choose differently. We should defend their right to choose even if we do not fear that discrimination against them is the first move in the xenophobia that will surely haunt us soon afterwards. It is the right thing to do, the moral choice.

Take a Risk

noreply@blogger.com (george) — Wed, 05 May 2010 19:22:00 +0000

My friend, Stephen Lack is having an exhibition of his recent paintings, called Drive By shown in Montreal from May 7th to June 14th, 2010. The opening is on Thursday, May 6th, 2010 at 5pm, with the artist in attendance. I will go there to see the paintings and the artist. It will be held at the Galerie Pangée, #40 Rue St Paul W. in Old Montreal. Steve says that he likes working with this gallery which takes risks. He reminded me that his drawings were first published in my first book of poems, At the Foot of Sinai. As it has been out of print for awhile, I have been intending to reprint it. For further information about the exhibition, please contact Margot Ross at margot@galeriepangee.com or 514.845.3368.

Aside from publicizing the exhibition, I wanted to expand a little on the idea of risk taking. The gallery takes risks, Steve takes risks, I take risks. It is too bad that today, too many people are afraid to take risks. We are too ensconced in our ways, too comfortable, too afraid. True that it is possible to fail, - that's what risk means, but more important, there is a chance for success. Only with risk is there a chance for success beyond your wildest dreams. Opening a new business is a risk. Publishing an unpublished poet is a risk, exhibiting an artist is a risk. Trying to achieve your dream is a risk. But without taking the risk, it will not happen.

Are you willing to take risks? I am.

Why Do We Need SBR in Canada?

noreply@blogger.com (george) — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 02:17:00 +0000

This also appeared on the XBI Software web site at www.xbisoftware.com/whysbr.htm

Standard Business Reporting (SBR) consists of a group of programs initiated by government to reduce the compliance burden for business. It can be implemented in Canada in three years and will result in overall savings to industry alone of over $800 million dollars annually. Government departments, agencies and regulators cooperate and collaborate to create one national definition taxonomy (in XBRL) to contain all the data collected by these bodies. This one definition taxonomy has no unnecessary or duplicated concepts or data descriptions and is used to create reports for each agency taking part in the project. By way of example, in Australia, 2,694 data items were reduced to 1,094 unique data items, a reduction of 1,600. By only asking for the information in the taxonomy, the cost of compliance or red tape is reduced significantly. Without collaboration and standardization, the same information is reported in many ways, using different terms, different standards, different software. This increases confusion and the cost of reporting for business. Business owners and managers spend their own time or they hire accountants and consultants to accommodate the needs of reporting.

SBR is a better way of doing business because one harmonized standard data set is used. Reporting becomes a by-product of normal business processes and it becomes easier for business to manage its reporting obligation. Less data need be collected, only once, and ambiguity and confusion are reduced.

Typically, SBR comes with one single sign-on for all agencies with one digital certificate, one authentication process, and immediate acknowledgement and response. Any errors (there should be few because of automated validation and verification) should be reported back to the company with explicit instructions on how to fix it. Key benefits to business will include:

reduced time and effort spent preparing reports for government by business, accountants and bookkeepers
reduced need for and use of accountants to file government reports
reduced time and effort spent dealing with errors

These benefits come from:

Collaboration between government departments, agencies and regulators
One single definition taxonomy
No unnecessary, duplicate or confusing concepts
One sign-on with one digital signature and one authentication process

The first country to adopt SBR was the Netherlands. In addition to the Netherlands, there are now also SBR projects in Australia and New Zealand. According to the Guidance Note on Standard Business Reporting, published by the OECD Forum of Tax Administration: Taxpayer Services Subgroup in July 2009, "Studies in the Netherlands and in Australia, backed by early work on SBR in the UK, have estimated that the administrative burden imposed on businesses by government reporting amounts to roughly 2.5% of GDP. The Netherlands and Australian studies estimate that SBR related savings could reduce these costs by at least 8%, reducing the burden by 0.2% of GDP to 2.3%, which represents savings in the high hundreds of millions in both currencies."

By example, 12 agencies participate in the Australian SBR program, ATO (taxation), ASEC (corporate regulator), APRA (banking regulator), ABS (statistics) and the 8 state taxation agencies. With use of this taxonomy, in XBRL, accountants, bookkeepers, tax professionals and software developers will have access to a powerful system which will enable them not only to sent reports to government, but to banks and anyone else that requires business information.

Red Tape Reduction Commission's Efforts Timely

noreply@blogger.com (george) — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:53:00 +0000

This first appeared on the XBI Software web site at www.xbisoftware.com/redtape.htm

It is most welcome that in the Federal 2010 budget, the Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty announced that they would establish a Red Tape Reduction Commission. A second edition of a study by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB), Prosperity Restricted by Red Tape estimates that businesses in Canada currently spend over $30 billion each year complying with regulations. This amount is much too high, especially for small business, which is the most important element in stimulating our economy and employment.

XBRL Canada welcomed this announcement. In February, 2007, their annual conference was dedicated to explaining the cost of compliance (red tape). In the report Reducing the Burden of Compliance through Standardization, it was pointed out that reducing the compliance burden has two components: One is reducing the amount of information demanded by government. The other is reducing the difficulty in supplying the information that is required.

The new red tape reduction commission should include recommendations:

streamlining compliance when it is important and necessary for Canada
standardizing the terms and formats to reduce the amount of information required
cooperation and collaboration between governments and regulators
requiring submission of the same information to government only once.

The XBRL Canada announcement starts the discussion of using XBRL and SBR (standard business reporting)" to reduce the cost of compliance. We expect the new red tape reduction commission, perhaps under the jurisdiction of Stockwell Day, to include experts in all these areas and to do their work quickly and effectively so that Canadians and small business can start profiting from the results as soon as possible.

To learn more about XBI Software, please visit www.xbisoftware.com

To learn more about XBRL Canada, please visit www.xbrl.ca

Send emails to Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance, and to Stockwell Day, encouraging them to move quickly in establishing this commission with open and transparent dialogue that encourages participation.

If it’s such a no-brainer, ….

noreply@blogger.com (george) — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 11:25:00 +0000

In his blog, “Where are the experts?”, Dan Roberts says: “adoption of XBRL is entering a new phase, with the number of jurisdictions growing and the number of projects and mandates expanding almost by the month.” (Mandates?) Notwithstanding this, he says that there are not many XBRL experts. But more importantly, there is little demand for such expertise. Until there is greater demand, I believe that there will be no (or little) need for certification. Indeed a certification process at this time might very well be counter-productive.

I believe that in large measure, the need for experts should be obviated by sophisticated XBRL-enabled software. Few software developers currently involved in financial or business reporting have XBRL-enabled their software. So my question becomes: “Where is the software?”. Software developers claim that they cannot develop the software because, without a mandate, they have neither assured customers once the software is developed and/or because they have no risk capital. So the question moves along: “Where are the VCs?”

I have seen only one VC at an XBRL conference (Philadelphia), and the representative asked the same question. The VC was not impressed that his confreres were not present. I believe that they did not invest because they believed that the market was not ready for “prime time”. Even now, when the market is closer to being ready, there are few, if any, investors looking to invest in XBRL-enabled software because they believe that it is the next great thing.

Software developers, who have XBRL-enabled their software, like those doing call report software for sending reports to the FDIC, were required to do so. They did save money on support, but that would not have been sufficient to do the work without a mandate. The same will happen in the UK. If XBRL-enabling software is part of the price of entry, those who remain in the field will do so.

The question is not how to motivate those who are already convinced and go to XBRL conferences. It is not how to get more XBRL experts, who would still have little XBRL work to do. It is how to convince governments and regulators to mandate XBRL. In the XBRL (and SBR) communities, we claim that using XBRL is so valuable, it should be a no-brainer. Yet if it’s such a no-brainer, why is it so difficult? And why are investors not investing in companies who want to make a business from XBRL software development?

Why should it be a no brainer? Look at the FDIC call-report project. Even though they came to XBRL early, before XBRL 2.1 was issued, before the formula linkbase, before rendering and inline XBRL, they have saved a great deal of time and money, for themselves, for the call report software developers, for the banks who report to them. Other government departments and regulators should do the same, especially if they collaborate and work together.

Look at the argument Harm-Jan van Burg and Paul Madden make for SBR. For minimal incremental additional costs for the XBRL portion, the burden of compliance for business alone should be reduced by several orders of magnitude. Yet, there is no rush to SBR and using (and mandating) XBRL for use by governments and regulators. If it’s such a no-brainer, why not? Why do the influential among us not go to the World Bank and the IMF to get them to push XBRL and SBR in the projects that they finance?

Many of us like saying that we have market-driven economies. But marketers know that we have to create that market. And many markets are created by mandates. Would we have tax software if production of tax returns was no mandated?

The most innovative and flexible software developers are often small and medium sized companies, and although some are members of XII, few if any are represented on the ISC or the other decision-making bodies. And XII does nothing to encourage them. Not to mention individual membership.

Yes, new thinking is necessary. But let’s try to direct the new thinking
- to get investment in XBRL project development
- to use whatever influence we have to clearly support getting mandated government and regulatory projects
- to expand the decision making base by placing individuals, and small and middle-sized organizations in decision-making positions

Yes we can - but will we?

noreply@blogger.com (george) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:06:00 +0000

Why did the Democrats lose the recent gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey? Was it only because of local /state issues? Partially, but mostly not. I think it is because Obama and his chief aides did not really believe the Obama chant of "Yes, we can". Not only did he not do it; he did not even make the attempt. Instead, he has been trying too desperately to get the approval of those who won't (republicans and conservative democrats) in any case. What do I refer to?

The health care "reform" that he is trying to get approved is not a single payer health care, like medicare, but a lukewarm version of medical insurance reform. And without the public option, which is a bad compromise, or regulations which force insurance companies to insure all people with or without pre-existing conditions, rich, poor or in-between, it is barely reform at all. And worse for the economy, it will cost more, because the profits are being made by the insurance companies, not by the government.

The same applies to the stimulus package, which did not do what it promised because money was not channeled
1. to the poor,
2. to the unemployed,
3. to create jobs,
4 for shovel-ready projects.

Instead, much was put aside for tax reductions, which are at best delayed and for projects that may at one time become shovel-ready, but until they are, must the considered "pork".

The success of the TARP package would have been far greater and worked much faster had it included regulation. No compensation package should be greater that 100% of the person in the company with the lowest pay. Money that went to the banks should have gone with conditions:
- that most of the money would be spent on loans to individuals in need and SMEs,
- that some of the money should be spent to introduce systems which at the same time mitigate risk and make reporting to the banks cheaper, faster, easier and much less of a burden. (In the interests of disclosure, My company is building such a system.)

There was no pension reform package to ensure that pensions are handled independently of employers. Employees would not be left high and dry if the company went bankrupt, pensions would be portable and not be dependent upon union negotiations or the beneficence of an employer. In addition, it would not force companies like GM to increase the price of their cars and become uncompetitive because of pension obligations.

"Yes we can." Maybe, but only if "we" try. And captivated by the idea of working together and compromise, we haven't. So no wonder those who came out to vote for Obama a year ago from hope (the young, some of the underprivileged, blacks, etc) did not bother to vote now. And the right, which stood on their principles, becomes stronger. Can Obama do it? Maybe. But will he? - Frankly, I doubt it. Because he shows no indication that he wants to try.

Genocide and the first nations in North America

noreply@blogger.com (george) — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:44:00 +0000

I have always understood genocide to mean "the attempt to conduct a deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group." I always looked at the murder of the native people in North America as not deliberate enough to be genocide, but now I think that I may have been wrong. After all, it is the subject of genocide that should define what genocide is. If a people or other national, racial, political, or cultural group feels that it is being exterminated, that should be enough for us to agree that it is genocide. So with the Armenians by the Turks, the Jews and Gypsies by the Nazis, and the native peoples by the colonialists in North America (this is not an exhaustive list, - I can think of many other cases). It should not matter if the intention is deliberate and systematic extermination; if the targeted group feels that there is an attempt at its destruction, it is genocide.

Success too is not relevant. The fact that there are some survivors, it does not mean that it is not genocide. Nor is genocide excusable. For any reason. That is why no one can ever excuse any group that wishes to push another "into the sea". There are similar sayings about native Americans, but I will not repeat them. All are despicable.

The Evil That Men Do

noreply@blogger.com (george) — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 14:32:00 +0000

My father loved to quote Mark Anthony's soliloquy in Julius Caesar which includes the unforgettable lines "the evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred in their bones." Unlike Anthony, I come not to bury Rod Blagojevich; he may still accomplish much. Nor do I come to praise him, but to understand him. For to understand him is to understand America. As governor of Illinois, Blagojevich wanted something "of value for the open Senate seat" that was his to fill. But of course. That is the American way, do something for me and I'll do something for you. It can be something personal, like building a country home or getting a cousin a job (which may be illegal), or vote for bills I like or contribute to my campaign chest (which is probably not.) Prosecutors grant immunity or reduced sentences to people who give information about someone else. And even in the most innocent of cases, a Governor or President will appoint a person to a job because he or she feels that the appointee will support his policies or get him support by the general public.

So why not Blagojevich? Why do we feel compelled to prosecute (I hope not persecute) this man for doing what all other Americans do? Is it because he does so without shame? For pursuing his own interests? And this is the way of life not only in politics. It is the case in business, and how "deals" are made. It is the way in professional sports where teams trade lives and livings of their players. Or do we all of a sudden recognize that there is something wrong with this system? If so why blame Blagojevich?

the idolatry of land

noreply@blogger.com (george) — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:19:00 +0000

Many people feel connected to particular pieces of land, all over the world. The desire of Jews to be in Israel is but one example. I believe that all land is god's to give us, to lend us or to take away. We are meant to be good caretakers. Last year, I went to Slovakia where my mother's family had lived. I saw cemeteries (which is all that is left of many communities) that had been completely destroyed, pieces of gravestones where it was impossible even to recognize the name of the person buried there. That land is part of my history, but not part of me.

As is Montreal. I arrived here when I was about 5 and it has been good for me. I consider myself part of the (political) landscape, and I care very much about what happens here, yet this too is not my home. I live in a sukkah (a temporary dwelling) and wherever I am is the desert. The Torah tells of the people of Israel wandering in the desert for fourty years until the death of the generation of slaves before they arrived in Israel, a journey of less than fourty days. My journey is longer even than fourty generations.

grief

noreply@blogger.com (george) — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:16:00 +0000

we all have our own grief.
we know people who are no longer here.
and we mourn until we are comforted.

do the crime, do the time

noreply@blogger.com (george) — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 03:08:00 +0000

the milk remains spilled, the injury continues,
will the resentment that punishment breeds
make you, make me do what is desired?
is fear of force in the future
intended to be the desired motivator?
will it bring back the loss?
or is the future irrelevant?

is compensation beside the point?
Or does a sense of justice that evades me?
does the past demand independent compensation,
sending a criminal to the university of crime,
to learn how to do it better and not get caught?
i do not want to think it a version of revenge.

is it another deficiency in me
that I cannot understand?

i know. "an eye for an eye".
will my losing an eye help the victim?
will my losing an eye make the world a better place?
will the world be in greater harmony?
or will someone need to lead me around because I cannot see?

i am no jesus giving the other cheek
just searching for justice, for music
for beauty, for the morality
of improving or repairing the world.

solving the economic crisis, part 1

noreply@blogger.com (george) — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 03:02:00 +0000

The current economic crisis began primarily a credit crisis. Lenders are unwilling or unable to lend because the perceived probable gain is not great enough to compensate the lender for his risk. The effect of this is that people and companies, used to buying on credit, cannot get the credit and therefore, do not buy. As you know, when people do not buy, the economy slows down. As the economy slows, there is less money flowing. As I understand it, you claimed that the crisis which started as a result of the sub-prime mortgage crisis in the US would not come to Canada because we have better bank regulation. But when the elephant sneezes, the mouse gets a cold and we have been affected. Our customers in the US do not buy from us either and the flow of money has nearly come to a halt.

In macroeconomic terms, one would say that the marginal propensity to consume is very low. Solutions to this are not simple but they should (were I not writing to you, I would have been more emphatic and used the word "must") include help to the poor and underprivileged.

Those who have the least spend the largest proportion of their money. Everything that they receive goes back into the economy. They spend their money locally for the basic goods and services that they need immediately, for food, for rent, for transportation, etc. Because they spend their money locally and to others who need the money desperately, most of the money gets reused immediately, in other words, "the multiplier effect" is greater. And therefore more money flows. Interesting that the greatest good to the economy comes when you are also doing the greatest good for the neediest in society. Much less money leaves the system and becomes "fugitive".

shocked

noreply@blogger.com (george) — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 17:50:00 +0000

Where are her poems, her vitriol,
her vitality, her concern for others?
where is the pep, the life, the loving?

She had disappeared,
and I had not heard from her
but life seemed to have improved
- her acceptance of it.

She came to the world, like others,
and circumstance gave her purpose
as a child, as a young woman, as an adult.

She was ready to reform the world
and now the world stays without her
worse because her space is empty,
because she has gone.

the day after

noreply@blogger.com (george) — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 21:01:00 +0000

And now the day after inauguration,
All is right with the world,
The economy is booming,
Good jobs are a plenty
There is good health care,
Stock values are growing again,
The age of selfishness has ended,
There is peace in the world.

Am I dreaming or just raving?
The world has not changed.
Unlike Dorothy's arrival in Oz,
The world has not tuned from
Black and white to colour
Changing the world has but begun

happy inauguration day

noreply@blogger.com (george) — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 13:10:00 +0000

They are celebrating
The advent of messiah
No, a new president
To whom they have tied
Their hopes and dreams.
After eight years of suffering
It makes sense when
A man appears, who might
Be the heir of Kennedy or King,
A man with golden words,
With similar dreams.

Do not place too much hope
In one man. But maybe he
And his advisors can help us,
Pull us out of the mud
In which we enjoy wallowing
And achieve our aspirations.

a prayer for the victims

noreply@blogger.com (george) — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 11:39:00 +0000

The qassam rockets fly over the town of Sderot
Let them fall where they may; make people fear and pray
As they run away. Terror has its way.
"How do we make them stop?"

The environment becomes more toxic as
Hatred fills the air. Stop. Stop. Stop.
The more the hatred in Sderot, the more the joy in Azza.
"We have given them their just deserts."

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not with us,
We have been punished, we have been mistreated,
we have been tortured, we are the victims
Acting out, striking at our persecutors."

"Revenge is our just reward."
"Give the bastards the treatment they deserve."
"Bring out the army."
"More powerful rockets! Bombs!"

Am I alone in believing with the rabbis
That good deeds parent good deeds,
That terror begets terror
That war is the mother of war?

"You are unrealistic."
Yet a show of strength has never worked.
"They don't deserve to live."
Do you think that it is good to gather body pieces for burial?

"The criminals don't deserve to live."
Who speaks for harmony? Who believes
That trust is possible, that there can be a miracle?
Not blood for blood, but a thriving society?

My optimism has been crushed by the stones of false hopes
Is the desolation perhaps god's revenge?
Can I believe in the power of man not to be deceived
By the attraction of land? "This land is my land."

A small still voice calls over
Smaller than mine
"Land too is a false prophet."
"All the land is Mine to give, to take, to desolate."

Who will listen?

Unacknowledged

noreply@blogger.com (george) — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 20:40:00 +0000

In his In Defense of Poetry, in 1822, Percy Bysshe Shelly, called poets the "unacknowledged legislators." Are poets truly unacknowledged legislators? If so, they are not the only ones. And how many people are simply unacknowledged even if they present points of view that call for social justice, for peace, for consideration between people.

In my blog, I will attempt to present a perspective that favours social justice and consideration. I believe that is the best for humankind.