Facebook vs. MySpace

Ken AshfordBloggingLeave a Comment

Social networking analyzed by a UC Berkeley PhD student.  Bottom line of her thesis?  While MySpace continues to be the social networking destination for kids on the fringe who may or may not have any interest in college, Facebook appears to be growing into a site filled with college-educated, "upper"-class users:

Most teens who exclusively use Facebook are familiar with and have an opinion about MySpace. These teens are very aware of MySpace and they often have a negative opinion about it. They see it as gaudy, immature, and "so middle school." They prefer the "clean" look of Facebook, noting that it is more mature and that MySpace is "so lame." What hegemonic teens call gaudy can also be labeled as "glitzy" or "bling" or "fly" (or what my generation would call "phat") by subaltern teens. Terms like "bling" come out of hip-hop culture where showy, sparkly, brash visual displays are acceptable and valued. The look and feel of MySpace resonates far better with subaltern communities than it does with the upwardly mobile hegemonic teens. This is even clear in the blogosphere where people talk about how gauche MySpace is while commending Facebook on its aesthetics. I’m sure that a visual analyst would be able to explain how classed aesthetics are, but aesthetics are more than simply the "eye of the beholder" – they are culturally narrated and replicated. That "clean" or "modern" look of Facebook is akin to West Elm or Pottery Barn or any poshy Scandinavian design house (that I admit I’m drawn to) while the more flashy look of MySpace resembles the Las Vegas imagery that attracts millions every year. I suspect that lifestyles have aesthetic values and that these are being reproduced on MySpace and Facebook.

Let me add my two cents: MySpace really is lame.

The Extraconstitutional Beast

Ken AshfordBush & Co.1 Comment

Following the revelation that Cheney believes he is not part of the Executive Branch of government (and therefore not subject to rules and oversight when it comes to classified information), legislation is being sponsored in both houses of Congress whicih will cut off all funding to the Vice President — at least until he comes forward and says what branch of government he is in.

Pretty good.

Meanwhile, Carpetbagger notes what a problem this is causing for the Bush White House, trying to weasel their way out of this bizarre thing:

The White House has had almost a week to come up with some semblance of a rationale for Dick Cheney arguing that he’s not part of the executive branch. There are some clever spin doctors in the vaunted White House communications office and some creative lawyers in the WH counsel’s office; surely someone will come up with something vaguely coherent, right? Wrong.

The explanatory task fell to White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, whose skin reddened around her neck and collar as she pleaded ignorance during the daily briefing: “I’m not a legal scholar. . . . I’m not opining on his argument that his office is making. . . . I don’t know why he made the arguments that he did.”

“It’s a little surreal,” remarked Keith Koffler of Congress Daily. “You’re telling me,” Perino agreed.

"You can’t give an opinion about whether the vice president is part of the executive branch or not?” Koffler pressed. “It’s a little bit like somebody saying, ‘I don’t know if this is my wife or not.’"

***

At my favorite point, Perino said, “I think that everyone is making this a little bit more complicated than it needs to be.” Moments later, when a reporter asked why she “can’t give an opinion about whether the Vice President is part of the executive branch or not,” Perino responded, “I think it’s a little bit more complicated than that.” In other words, as far as Perino was concerned reporters were making this controversy more complicated and less complicated simultaneously.

A reporter eventually said, “[Cheney] can argue he’s part of both, but he can’t possibly argue that he’s part of neither. And it seems like he’s saying he’s part of neither.” To which Perino responded, “Okay, you have me thoroughly confused.”

It was the only thing she got right the whole day.

There’s a moment in Monty Python and the Holy Grail when an obnoxious Frenchman is taunting Arthur and Galahad. After a series of abusive comments, Galahad eventually asks, “Is there someone else up there we could talk to?”

I thought about that yesterday. At one point, Perino said, in response to one of many Cheney-related questions, “I don’t know that to be true, so I’m not commenting on it.” Helen Thomas responded, “Can you send someone out here who can?”

Meanwhile, Dana Milbank reports today in the Washington Post that Cheney argued, back in 2001, that he was exempt from oversight because he is part of the executive branch.

Cheney has refused to comply with an order governing the care of classified documents; his office concluded that the order does not apply because he is not “an entity within the executive branch.”

That’s quite opposite the argument Cheney made in 2001, when he said that a congressional probe into the workings of his energy task force “would unconstitutionally interfere with the functioning of the executive branch.” Cheney has, in effect, declared himself to be neither fish nor fowl but an exotic, extraconstitutional beast who answers to no one.

Presidential Scholars Scholar President

Ken AshfordWar on Terrorism/TortureLeave a Comment

God bless them, indeed:

While meeting with a group of high school seniors from the Presidential Scholars program in the East Room of the White House, President Bush received an unexpected surprise: a letter signed by 50 of them urging Bush to halt “violations of the human rights” of terror suspects held by the United States.

More:

According to AP, "The White House says Bush did not expect the letter but took a moment to read it and talk with a young woman who’d handed it to him."

White House spokesman Dana Perino said Bush let the student know "the United States does not torture and that we value human rights," a statement seemingly contradicted by Bush’s signing statement which gave him power to largely ignore a Congressional ban on torture spearheaded by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).

Sorkin Back To Broadway

Ken AshfordPopular CultureLeave a Comment

Farnsworthwlogo Live From Studio 60, which kind of grew on me (especially these last episodes), has not been renewed.  Apparently, Aaron Sorkin’s creation just didn’t find its audience, unlike the critically-acclaimed The West Wing and the cult fave SportsNight.

But there is good Sorkin news.  The Farnsworth Invention, his first new play since A Few Good Men in 1989, opens later this year on Broadway.  From Playbill:

The Farnsworth Invention concerns the battle for the patent for the invention of the television set. The race pitted a young genius, Philo T. Farnsworth, who came up with the idea as a high school student, against David Sarnoff, the head of the Radio Corporation of America (RCA).

To be directed by Des McAnuff.  Cast unknown yet.  Scheduled for a November opening.

Farnsworth must have been on Sorkin’s mind for some time.  I recall a scene from SportsNight (which must have aired in 1998 or 1999) in which one character, plated by William H Macy, talks about Farnsworth:

Sam Donovan: Do you guys know who Philo Farnsworth was? He invented television. I don’t mean he invented television like Uncle Milty, I mean he invented the television.

In a little house in Provo, Utah. At a time when the idea of transmitting moving pictures through the air would be like me saying I’ve figured out a way to beam us aboard the Starship Enterprise.

He was a visionary and he died broke and without fanfare.

The guy I really like though was his brother-in-law, Cliff Gardner. He said to Philo, “I know everyone thinks you’re crazy, but I want to be a part of this. I don’t have your head for science, so I’m not gonna be much help with the design and mechanics of the invention. But it sounds like in order to do your testing, you’re gonna need glass tubes.”

See, Philo was inventing a cathode receptor, and even though Cliff didn’t know what that meant or how it worked, he’d seen Philo’s drawing and he knew they were gonna need glass tubes and since television hadn’t been invented yet, it’s not like you could get ‘em at the local TV repair shop. “I want to be a part of this”, Cliff said, “and I don’t have your head for science. How would it be if I taught myself to be a glassblower? And I could set up a little shop in the backyard. And I could make all the tubes you’ll need for testing.”

There oughta be Congressional medals for people like that.

I’ve looked over the notes you’ve been giving over the last year or so, and I have to say that they exhibit an almost total lack of understanding of how to get the best from talented people.

You said before that for whatever reason, I seem to be able to exert authority around here. I assure you, it isn’t because they like me. It’s because they knew two minutes after I walked in the door that I’m somebody who knows how to do something. I can help. I can make glass tubes. That’s what they need.

Sorkin’s writing is a godsend for people like me who like a steady feast of trivial knowledge.

“I Got Your Satisfaction Guaranteed ….In My Pants!”

Ken AshfordCourts/LawLeave a Comment

16107550876The "Case of the Judge’s Missing Pants" opinion — abridged:

"Yes, the sign says ‘Satisfaction Guaranteed’, but that doesn’t mean the dry cleaner must do whatever the customer wants, no matter how fuckin’ insane.  A ‘reasonable customer’ standard applies."

You can read the opinion here (pdf).  The story starts on page 5.

The background news coverage can be found here:

A judge ruled Monday that no pair of pants is worth $54 million, rejecting a lawsuit that took a dry cleaner’s promise of "Satisfaction Guaranteed" to its most litigious extreme.

Roy L. Pearson originally sought $67 million from the defendants, claiming they lost a pair of trousers from a blue and maroon suit, then tried to give him a pair of charcoal gray pants that he said were not his.

Pearson arrived at the amount by adding up years of alleged law violations and almost $2 million in common law fraud claims. He then lowered the amount he was seeking to $54 million.

But District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled that the owners of Custom Cleaners did not violate the city’s consumer protection law by failing to live up to Pearson’s expectations of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign once displayed in the store window.

Roy Pearson, the plaintiff, is a judge himself, a $96,000-a-year gig as an administrative law judge for the District government.  And — if you ask me — kind of a prick. $54 million because the dry cleaner might have lost your pants (you’re not sure?!!?)????

The judge said Pearson must pay the Chungs’ court costs and she will consider a request by the Chung family for attorneys fees and sanctions against Pearson.  Personally, I think Pearson should be disbarred for litigation abuse.

Hilzoy agrees that this Pearson guy is a litigious prick:

I read around, and chanced to find a copy of Pearson’s divorce proceedings. They’re not nearly as outrageous as this case, but they did suggest a person who was willing to use his knowledge of the law to bully other people by filing odd and excessive complaints. As the decision in the current case states:

"The trial court in Fairfax County made specific findings that the litigation was disproportionately long, despite the relative simplicity of the case, and that Mr. Pearson “in good part is responsible for excessive driving up of everything that went on here” and created “unnecessary litigation.” Mr. Pearson therefore was ordered to pay $12,000 of his wife’s attorney’s fees. Mr. Pearson appealed, and the Virginia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s finding."

This guy seems to be a serial abuser of the judicial system. Having to pay the attorney’s fees for the dry cleaners might make him think twice about doing this again to some poor unsuspecting waitress or gas station attendant who rubs him the wrong way.

Pictured above: the people that Judge Pearson sued

Like the saying goes, it’s 99% of the lawyers that give the rest of us a bad name….

The Rhetorical Shift

Ken AshfordIraqLeave a Comment

They’re not al Qaeda, but the news calls them that anyway:

As E&P has noted in the past week, the U.S. military has increasingly referred to insurgents in Iraq as "al-Qaeda fighters" or "Qaeda militants." When and why this is happening is not certain, although linking the insurgents to those who attacked us on 9/11 would appear to have certain benefits in the court of public opinion.

In the past, however, both military and outside observers have long stated that so-called "foreign fighters" or members of the group Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia have made up only a tiny fraction of those who are actively battling the U.S. occupation.

Blogging at Salon.com this weekend, Glenn Greenwald has a lengthy take on this issue. "What makes this practice all the more disturbing is how quickly and obediently the media has adopted the change in terms consciously issued by the Bush administration and their military officials responsible for presenting the Bush view of the war to the press," he concludes.

On Sunday, however, Mike Drummond from the Baghdad bureau of McClatchy, observes, "U.S. forces continue to battle Shiite militia in the south as well as Shiite militia and Sunni insurgents in Baghdad. Yet America’s most wanted enemy at the moment is Sunni al Qaida in Iraq. The Bush administration’s recent shift toward calling the enemy in Iraq ‘al Qaida’ rather than an insurgency may reflect the difficulty in maintaining support for the war at home more than it does the nature of the enemy in Iraq.

Greenwald:

What is so amazing about this new rhetorical development — not only from our military, but also from our "journalists" — is that, for years, it was too shameless and false even for the Bush administration to use. Even at the height of their propaganda offensives about the war, the furthest Bush officials were willing to go was to use the generic term "terrorists" for everyone we are fighting in Iraq, as in: "we cannot surrender to the terrorists by withdrawing" and "we must stay on the offensive against terrorists."

But after his 2004 re-election was secure, even the President acknowledged that "Al Qaeda" was the smallest component of the "enemies" we are fighting in Iraq:

A clear strategy begins with a clear understanding of the enemy we face. The enemy in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists and terrorists. The rejectionists are by far the largest group. These are ordinary Iraqis, mostly Sunni Arabs, who miss the privileged status they had under the regime of Saddam Hussein — and they reject an Iraq in which they are no longer the dominant group. . . .

The second group that makes up the enemy in Iraq is smaller, but more determined. It contains former regime loyalists who held positions of power under Saddam Hussein — people who still harbor dreams of returning to power. These hard-core Saddamists are trying to foment anti-democratic sentiment amongst the larger Sunni community. . . .

The third group is the smallest, but the most lethal: the terrorists affiliated with or inspired by al Qaeda.

And note that even for the "smallest" group among those we are fighting in Iraq, the president described them not as "Al Qaeda," but as those "affiliated with or inspired by al Qaeda." Claiming that our enemy in Iraq was comprised primarily or largely of "Al Qaeda" was too patently false even for the President to invoke in defense of his war.

But now, support for the war is at an all-time low and war supporters are truly desperate to find a way to stay in Iraq. So the administration has thrown any remnants of rhetorical caution to the wind, overtly calling everyone we are fighting "Al Qaeda."

Top 1000 Films Evah

Ken AshfordPopular CultureLeave a Comment

Over the next five days, the Guardian is publishing their list of the top 1000 films ever, in alphabetical order.  Keep checking back.

So far, they’ve only done A through some of C.

No "All About Eve".  But then again, this isn’t limited to just American/English films. 

On the other hand, "American Pie" and "The Brady Bunch Movie" made the list.

Supreme Court Roundup

Ken AshfordCampaign Finance Reform, Constitution, Supreme CourtLeave a Comment

Two seemingly contradictory cases on the First Amendment from the Supreme Court today.

On the one hand, it is permissible to regulate student speech (at a public parade) when it references drugs.  So, the First Amendment be damned.

On the other hand, the same coalition of Justices think we cannot restrict issues ads (a McCain-Feingold regulation) because that would place a burden on free speech.  So yaaaay First Amendment.

Do you get the sense that the conservative-majority judges are merely deciding the cases based on whether they like the outcome, rather than some consistent legal doctrine?

I haven’t read the cases yet, but something tells me that if the student in the first case was protesting abortions, then it would have been baaaaaaad to regulate his speech.

UPDATE:  The student speech case is interesting.  The facts are simple.  Joseph Frederick was 18 when he unveiled an 14-foot paper sign on a public sidewalk outside his Juneau, Alaska, high school in 2002.  The sign said "Bong Hits For Jesus".  Principal Deborah Morse confiscated it and suspended Frederick. He sued, saying his free speech rights were violated.

The Supreme Court said "no", his rights were not violated.  Apparently, thyey saw the message as advocating drug use, which is contrary to the school’s educational mission.  (The student said he was not advocating drug use, or indeed advocating anything.  The reason for the sign, he said, was to be absurdist and the only "message" he was conveying was his right to convey messages).

SCOTUSBlog makes this observation:

The Chief Justice’s opinion, too, indicates that the case would have come out differently if the banner had "convey[ed] any sort of political or religious message," such as that involved in "political debate over the criminalization of drug use or possession," rather than (in the Court’s view) mere "student speech celebrating illegal drug use."

Debate, political and religious messages — protected. "Celebration" of illegal activity (drug use, anyway) — no go. That’s the upshot.

So if the sign had read, "Torture Jesus Like He’s A Gitmo Detainne", it could not have been confiscated.  But since it says "Bong Hits For Jesus", the student has no First Amendment Rights.

The majority today seems to suggest that the school has an interest in promoting its viewpoint and quashing dissent…to preserve order.

Horrible, horrible decision.

Bizarre.

LATE UPDATE — "WHAT DIGBY SAYS" EDITION:

So the Supremes took a strong stand for the First Amendment today and stood up for the right of little guy corporations, aggrieved rich guys and voiceless conservative special interests to influence elections with misleading advertising. The first amendment is sacred and shouldn’t be tampered with for any reason. God bless America.

Well, not exactly. The words "bong hits for Jesus" aren’t covered because they could be construed as promoting something that some people think is bad. (At least if you are under eighteen years old.) I’m awfully impressed with the intellectual consistency of the Roberts Court so far, how about you?

I think we need to start thinking about how to deal with the new era of wingnut judicial activism. If anyone actually thought the Warren Court was activist for trying to right long standing social inequality, they haven’t seen anything until they see what John, Clarence, Nino, Sammy and Tony do to expand the rights of rich people and corporations while turning back the clock on everything else. It’s going to be a generational battle. I hope everyone realizes this.

Fisking Noonan

Ken AshfordRight Wing Punditry/Idiocy, Sex/Morality/Family ValuesLeave a Comment

Mark Noonan at Blogs for Bush:

Yep, we conservative Christians are just a bunch of hijackers…

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) – Sen. Barack Obama told a church convention Saturday that some right- wing evangelical leaders have exploited and politicized religious beliefs in an effort to sow division. "Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart. It got hijacked," the Democratic presidential candidate said in remarks prepared for delivery before the national meeting of the United Church of Christ.

"Part of it’s because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who’ve been all too eager to exploit what divides us," the Illinois senator said.

"At every opportunity, they’ve told evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage, school prayer and intelligent design," according to an advance copy of his speech.

Given that Obama’s religion performs rituals which are supposed to unite in holy matrimony people of the same sex, I think there might be something more to our opposition to liberalism than some sort of sick desire to just divide people. You know, Senator, it just might be liberalism’s insistence upon such things as gay marriage which is driving the wedge?

Liberals’ insistence?  Take a look at what constitutional amendments are appearing in state legislatures, Noonan.  You don’t see a bunch of gay people trying to pass gay marriage laws.  You see Christian homo-bigots trying to pass laws restricting marriage to men and women only.

Maybe we Christians were just minding our own business until we discovered that the left was hijacking America?

L:aughable that Noonon employes the phrase "minding our own business".  Simple question, Mark: If two women who living four blocks away from you, who you don’t know about, want to live together in matrimony, how does this become "your business"?

Some times it is useful to approach issues with an open mind and consider different points of view – you should try it, Senator.

Hahahahaha.  Yes, by advocating marriages among gay people, it is Senator OBAMA that has a closed mind!  Snarf, snortle.

We’re getting rather tired of this run-around, anyways. This is the way the left/right dialogue goes on moral issues:

Liberal: "Hey, we’d like to have gay marriage."

Two Thousand Year Old Faith: "That is an interesting concept but we believe that it might not be in the best interest of all concerned to rush into such a thing."

That’s what they said about the abolition of slavery, Two Thousand Year Old Faith.

And can you explain WHY it "might not be in the best interest"?  And can you explain who these "all concerned" people ARE?

L: "We’re filing a lawsuit tomorrow claiming that the equal protection clause requires that gay people be allowed to marry."

TTYOF: "Look, we’ve checked carefully on this and it seems that in our faith and in the long-standing traditions of our society, there is no provision for same sex marriage. We love our bothers and sisters who have a deep-seated inclination towards homosexuality, but to say that two men or two women can be married is a direct contravention of laws both human and divine on what makes a marriage."

Oh, I see.  YOUR faith.  YOUR traditions. 

They said the same thing about abolition of slavery, Noonan.

L: "You bigots!!!"

Well, ain’t it so?

What we are tired of is the left introducing novelty into society and then saying we’re being devisive when we’re unready to immediately accept the latest leftwing fad as the last word on what is right and wrong.

Gay people aren’t a novelty.

Oh, and conservatives said the same thing about the abolition of slavery, and women voting.  And desegregation.  Did I mention that?

What I say to Senator Obama is: could you please stop dividing us? Stop dividing us into "rich" and "poor". Stop dividing us into "black" and "white".

He’s not.  Although you, Mr. Noonan, just got through saying there are different rules for "gay" and "straight" when it comes to marriage.  How is THAT not dividing?

Stop dividing us into the host of liberal boxes that you toss people into – we are all the children of God, and when some of us disagree with you, it isn’t because we hate you or your cause, but because we believe differently from you.

That’s fine.  Nobody is asking you to get gay married YOURSELF.  But your beliefs do not trump the rights of others.

Moron.

RELATED:  More stupid punditry …on global warming.

Must-Reads On Cheney

Ken AshfordBush & Co.Leave a Comment

From the Washington Post:  Part I and Part II.  The articles focus on the incredible growth of power of Cheney, and his influence.

From Part One:

Waxing or waning, Cheney holds his purchase on an unrivaled portfolio across the executive branch. Bush works most naturally, close observers said, at the level of broad objectives, broadly declared. Cheney, they said, inhabits an operational world in which means are matched with ends and some of the most important choices are made. When particulars rise to presidential notice, Cheney often steers the preparation of options and sits with Bush, in side-by-side wing chairs, as he is briefed.

Before the president casts the only vote that counts, the final words of counsel nearly always come from Cheney.

Part Two relates to the use of torture:

Geneva rules forbade not only torture but also, in equally categorical terms, the use of “violence,” “cruel treatment” or “humiliating and degrading treatment” against a detainee “at any time and in any place whatsoever.” The War Crimes Act of 1996 made any grave breach of those restrictions a U.S. felony [Read the act]. The best defense against such a charge, Addington wrote, would combine a broad presidential direction for humane treatment, in general, with an assertion of unrestricted authority to make exceptions.

The vice president’s counsel proposed that President Bush issue a carefully ambiguous directive. Detainees would be treated “humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of” the Geneva Conventions. When Bush issued his public decision two weeks later, on Feb. 7, 2002, he adopted Addington’s formula — with all its room for maneuver — verbatim.

In a radio interview last fall, Cheney said, “We don’t torture.” What he did not acknowledge, according to Alberto J. Mora, who served then as the Bush-appointed Navy general counsel, was that the new legal framework was designed specifically to leave room for cruelty. In international law, Mora said, cruelty is defined as “the imposition of severe physical or mental pain or suffering.” He added: “Torture is an extreme version of cruelty.”

The vice president’s lawyer advocated what was considered the memo’s most radical claim: that the president may authorize any interrogation method, even if it crosses the line of torture. U.S. and treaty laws forbidding any person to "commit torture," that passage stated, "do not apply" to the commander in chief, because Congress "may no more regulate the President’s ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield."

That same day, Aug. 1, 2002, Yoo signed off on a second secret opinion, the contents of which have never been made public. According to a source with direct knowledge, that opinion approved as lawful a long list of specific interrogation techniques proposed by the CIA — including waterboarding, a form of near-drowning that the U.S. government classified as a war crime in 1947. The opinion drew the line against one request: threatening to bury a prisoner alive.

There will be a part three and part four.

I’ve excerpted the analysis of Anonymous Liberal:

There’s enough stuff in the first two installments alone to fill 100 blog posts, easily. But since I don’t have that kind of time, I want to focus on a few meta-observations.

(1) Conspicuously absent from nearly every important scene described in these articles is the President himself. Time and again we see the Vice President making decisions, attending meetings, and handling situations that really should be handled by the President personally. We also see the Vice President continually limiting or otherwise manipulating the information and advice that reaches the President’s ear. We see him secretly intercepting memos intended for other cabinet officials, keeping key officials out of the loop on important decisions, and using other officials to disguise the provenance of advice originating from his office. The portrait that emerges is of a man with utter disdain for process and an almost messianic certainty in his beliefs, a man who has used his immense knowledge of the workings of the executive bureaucracy and his close relationship with a pliant, inexperienced president to effectively control national policy on all issues related to the "war on terror" for the last six years. Cheney really is the man behind the curtain.

More blow the fold…

Read More

The “Silent No”

Ken AshfordPopular CultureLeave a Comment

From Buzzfeed:

Culture Buzz: The new way to say "no" is by simply not responding. The Silent No is perfect for business, romance, and family situations. It lets you stay positive in face-to-face encounters and avoids the awkwardness of sharing bad news. Did a loser ask you on a date? Having second thoughts about a business agreement? Or just too busy to deal with all the people who want something from you? Don’t respond and they will eventually get the message.

If this is a cultural trend, then I hate it.  It’s cowardly and weak.

Blogging From 1914

Ken AshfordBlogging1 Comment

A good idea for blog: blog from history.

Naomi Klein is blogging the diary of her grandmother, Dora Lurie, a Lithuanian stranded while travelling in Europe when World War I broke out.  Unable to return to her country, Dora and her companions became U.S. citizens.

The title of the blog is, appropriately enough, "Stranded".