The MPEG LA firm, the firm that owns the patent for the H.264 codec, stated

MPEG LA, the firm that controls licensing for a number of video and other standards, announced on Thursday that it will never charge any royalties for Internet video encoded using the H.264 standard that Apple favors, as long as that video is free to end-users.

Note the language used…

If a video is encoded using the H.264 codec, MPEG LA will not charge royalties for the Internet video SO LONG AS that video, that was encoded using H.264, is free to end-users…

Let me say that one more time…

If a video is encoded using the H.264 codec, MPEG LA will not charge royalties for the Internet video SO LONG AS that video, that was encoded using H.264, is free to end-users…

I don’t see how that assures anyone that MPEG LA will make the H.264 codec “open” in any way…

Do you?

Security Alerts…

I did not know that the USA could have different Security Alert status positions at the same time…

Come to find out, the USA posts a terror alert (you can add it to your page too)… See the right column? Right now, the USA is “elevated” or yellow while the USA AIR warning is “Elevated” or red…

Take from this? Take the train…

Terrorists…

I see people saying that terrorists are religious fanatics or “crazy” people. I think terrorists are those that talk others into killing because they think they are too valuable to lose for the cause… You know… The adult who would convince a child to go kill those the “adult” finds offensive (for whatever reason) because the adult is to cowardly to “fight” those they, themselves, oppose… See here for an example…

Funny how people like that always want someone else to go fight “their” fight…

Stuff

We may make mistakes more than once…

This saying applies to people, companies, and states (countries). One reason to study history is to know about past mistakes, try to avoid future/current mistakes, and to learn from past mistakes so that we become … better.

Hopefully every USA citizen has read these two documents…

Declaration of Independence — More information available here.

Constitution of the United States of America - Much more information available here.

I. Like, OMG!

Some Silicon Valley High School students won medals in math contest…

II. Who would by this censored?

Playboy announces it will be censoring its iPad application to meet Apple’s stringent “Morality Test.” I mean… Really? I know they have good articles, but … Really?

III. Oracle…driven to make money…

Oracle announces it will not pursue OpenSolaris. At the same time, Oracle sues Google and announces JAVA is not free… Anyone know what happened about this news release by the Free Software Foundation (FSF)?

I see many people saying the new Arizona Law is “racist” (as if there is such a thing…) and discriminatory…

Criminal laws discriminate against criminals…

I have to ask this… Have you read the Arizona Law?

If not, read here…

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

If you complain the new law is a “problem,” you should at least know what the law says… Otherwise you are ignorant and uneducated…

Understand that “undocumented migrants” are “illegal immigrants.” It is illegal to be in the USA without following the laws regarding immigration.

To say that “undocumented workers” are not illegal is like saying a man isn’t a criminal even though he stole food to feed his family… Educate yourself and think critically…

Please… Do everyone a favor. Read the Law.

So says the 5-Judge majority as stated by Judge Alito.

Why is this a surprise? It shouldn’t be… Think about the first 10 Amendments…

They are limitations on governmental power over citizens. Shall we review?

1st - Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

2nd - Militia (United States), Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

3rd - Protection from quartering of troops.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

4th - Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

5th - Due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

6th - Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

7th - Civil trial by jury.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

8th - Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

9th - Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th - Powers of States and people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

All of these grant rights to citizens that are to be guaranteed to the citizens of the USA. I think that is a good thing…

“Liberal” Judges don’t get it and, thank God, can’t sell it…

Yahoo has a news link that states:

Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, each wrote a dissent. Stevens said that unlike the Washington case, Monday’s decision “could prove far more destructive — quite literally — to our nation’s communities and to our constitutional structure.”

Does he recall that the reason we have a country is that the citizens had guns? Just because people can use guns unwisely isn’t a reason to reduce the rights of the citizenry… If that were the case, Free Speech would be reduced first since most arguments and fights begin with words… Perhaps the Judges in their “Ivory Tower” have forgotten this fact… I hope they aren’t that … ignorant!

The passage of concealed carry laws has been “trumpeted” as being so dangerous by many anti-gun groups including the Brady Campaign… However, none of the states with such “Shall Issue” laws has seen any of this destruction to any of their communities. While not funny, it is enlightening that the areas with the most strict gun control laws are those very places where gun violence is so bad-Chicago, Washington D.C., …

Constitutional Victory

Nobody likes like gun violence. Nobody.

Liberals should be granting liberal rights to the citizenry rather than reducing citizen rights. Funny that it appears to be those labeled as “conservative” that grant rights to all of us…

For those who think this will create bad violence and killings, I have a statement…

If the President of the Brady Campaign went out and bought a gun and obtained a concealed carry permit, he/she would not be any more likely to commit gun violence than any other citizen who does the same… Those you need to worry about are those criminals who break the laws and who are willing to use gun violence to “get what they want.”

Remember, the criminal is committing a crime. I don’t think making it illegal to own a firearm is going to stop a criminal from owning a firearm. It hasn’t worked in the United Kingdom, and it won’t work anywhere…

Think critically rather than with your emotions. One is good, the other is scary.

Okay… Not perfect, but I like it and it is my blog…

Obama and BP just came to grips and agreed on 20 Billion USD fund to compensate those affected by the Oil Spill…

Let me put this into perspective as to how cheap that agreement is…

See here…

BP’s 2009 Annual Summary

Look at the Profit before interest and taxation….$26,426 Million.

BP made, in 2009, 26 Billion USD in profit.

It seems to me that 20B USD as a fund isn’t enough…

On that track, they will still make a profit in 2010.

Doesn’t that seem, somehow, wrong?

I’m sure you are all aware that Helen Thomas has “retired.” I think she was forced out due to her opinions.

Funny about that, everyone has them, but we don’t accept those that are contrary to ours…

That makes us as biased and intolerant as those we complain about doesn’t it? If not, I’d like to hear what you think is logic…

My comment to those Jews and Arabs who are exchanging barbs about this:

The people who are replying in an angry tone or with profanity are not people who want peace or who think critically. Let me explain…

There is very little that is “right” or “wrong.” Mostly, it is a matter of what your culture finds “acceptable.” You have your opinions, and everyone else has their opinion. If you think you are always “right,” you are ignorant… What is “right” for you could be “wrong” for everyone else. Again, why do you think you are always right? Do you think Hitler killed the Jews he did because he thought he was … wrong?

The road to hell is paved not with good intentions but with those who “knew” they were “right.”

People are entitled to their opinions. Even if they are widely divergent from yours, you should try to understand their reasoning (if any). If you can not try to do so, are you not as “wrong” as they are since you have your opinion? Are you “wrong” to all of the people who called Palestine home? If you never listen to those who disagree, how do you ever learn? How do you correct your misunderstandings? How do you ever alter your view?

“Terrorists” are defined by the victors or those in power. Do research or do you forget those “freedom fighters” who killed many–not just people in the military or members of a police force. Again, the act is terrorism. The reason for the act is irrelevant isn’t it? Think!

She, like everyone else, is entitled to her opinion. Nobody else has to share her opinion, and you can think she is wrong. You can think the complete opposite. Who cares? You could think 2 + 3 = 4, and you still wouldn’t be right…

The point? Take “their” side. You ran them out of their home (USA to native Americans, Jews to Palestinians, Palestinians to Jews, etc.). Who “owned it when?” Someone live there before the Jewish religion was formed? Perhaps we should return it to those with Neanderthal DNA…

Why is there a need to “hate” anyone? Jew, Arab, etc? While I think the Muslim religion is off the mark (such as requiring conversion or “taxing” those who are not Muslim), I do think people should have the ability to worship as they want so long as it doesn’t bother others.

I do think education will go a long way to changing the Muslim religion… If not, I don’t think it will survive the education of its followers. Who can support the conversion (forced or not) or the “taxing” or unfair treatment of non-believers when they don’t other religions should “tax” them or treat them differently? Logic is a funny thing… How do you justify a double standard?

Think critically. Don’t hate someone because they have an opinion or it is okay for them to hate you for your opinion. Accept that people disagree with you. Accept that you are not always “right.” Learn to communicate. If you have forgotten your history, the Jews and Arab Muslims have the same ancestors… You are simply picking a time and culture that you don’t share with each other and claiming each is “right” while the “other” is “wrong.”

That sounds like my two kids arguing…

Get over it. Grow up and sit down and talk. Listen and learn. You aren’t different, you just have different beliefs. I bet you and your spouse don’t agree on everything. One might have voted left, one right. One might like education for women, one may not. One may love mathematics, and one may like literature…

Everyone is an individual. However, we need to learn to live together… If you are going to hate someone for an opinion, then you can’t complain when people hate you…

Critical thinking. Why is it that nobody tries anymore?

You can not like what she has to say, and you have a right to say as much. However, she has a right to her opinion and a right to speak her mind.

Before you jump down my throat, understand that there is lots in each “bible” that makes no sense…

Jonah swallowed by a whale? Sure, it is documented that a child was swallowed and lived, but I don’t know that Jonah was actually swallowed… Does it matter if it is absolute truth to learn the lesson the story teaches?

Remember, it was HUMANS that wrote the texts, and we are not perfect even if you think God is… If he is perfect, I wonder how it is we are unable to think critically and solve problems–instead we act all “emotional…”

Could Jesus walk on water? I don’t think so, but do all of his teachings mean nothing if he would sink?

Why do Muslims not want you to worship an idol but get angry when you deface the image of Muḥammad? I still don’t understand that… I understand Muslims think Muḥammad wasn’t the son of God and think he was just a prophet. However, I don’t know whether Muslims get upset if an image of Jesus or Moses is defaced. If not, what is the reasoning for the double standard?

I won’t even go into some of the “religions” like Scientology that … Well, go Google/Bing/Yahoo that for yourself…

My point is that we are all individuals. Get every “group” (muslim, jew, catholic, etc.) together, and I doubt you will find any two who agree on every issue. If we can agree on that issue, why is it that people in each of those groups finds it so easy to “hate” someone in another group simply because they disagree?

People need to think critically rather than be controlled by what others think. If you let the opinions or actions of others control you, are you really following your religion?

If you don’t believe in religion/God, a double-standard should not be acceptable to your logic.

If think a double-standard is acceptable, I’d love to hear how you justify it… Do you think you are “better” than others and, therefore, can tax non-believers? How about if the other groups did so to you or others of your religion? How would you feel then about them and their practice? Think now… Don’t cave in to the ease of feeling offended. God wants you to think–that is why you have reason that differentiates you from the other life on the planet. If you aren’t religious, you hare reasoning that is documented as being “higher” or more developed than that found in other life on the planet. If you are responding emotionally, how is that helping? Remember, think…

Think Critically.

How would you feel if you were not given the same rights as everyone else simply because you believed in a different God? How would you feel if it was the same God (Jews, Muslims, and Christians) but didn’t practice the worship of that God in the same manner?

Could it be God asked each of you to worship differently?

Summary

Remember, the road to hell or damnation is not paved with good intentions… The road to damnation is not admitting your “right” may be “wrong” for other people. When you “know” you are “right” and “others” are “wrong,” how are you different from Hitler (because he “knew” he was “right”) when you treat others to a different standard just because they don’t meet certain conditions (religion, appearance, etc.)? Remember, Hitler didn’t kill Jews, homosexuals, and others because he thought he was wrong.

Hitler thought he was “right,” and he used his “justification” to do terrible things. While you might not kill so many, how is your view that “they” are “wrong” any different than Hitler’s view of the Jews or the homosexuals? You hate them because they are them and not you? You hate them because they are different or hold different beliefs? Be better than Hitler…

Tolerance and understanding. God knows. He knew we would be thrown out of Eden, and he knew we would be tested. I don’t think he knows whether we use the greatest tools he gave us (reason and freedom of though) to save us and the world. Realistically, it doesn’t look good does it?

If a child hits your child, do you suggest your child go hit the other child back? If not, you should not hate others just because they disagree with you or your views.

Failing to think critically makes everyone look … like children. Hopefully, the majority of the people on this planet can put aside childish things.

In Closing

Everyone has an opinion…

If “We” don’t like or accept those opinions that are contrary to ours, aren’t we as biased and intolerant as those we complain about just because they are “wrong?”

Stop arguing like children. Put away childish things. Growing up is hard work. So is Critical Thinking.

What say you?

I’m surfing along a wave on the ocean called the Internet, and my board catches on an article on the Clean Water Act.

The article states

Rep. James L. Oberstar, chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said he’s trying to return the law to where it was before 2001, when the Supreme Court issued the first of two rulings that said the Clean Water Act’s use of “navigable” limits the government’s oversight to major rivers, lakes and similar waterways.
…
“Clean, safe water is a right for all Americans,” said Mr. Oberstar, Minnesota Democrat. “Unless we act, the law can’t ensure that right. Because of the Supreme Court decisions, companies have spilled oil, carcinogens and bacteria into the lakes, rivers and other waters without being fined or prosecuted.”

Critical Thinking?

Is “spilling oil, carcinogens, and bacteria” on upland soil acceptable to Mr. Oberstar? Spilling oil, carcinogens, and bacteria on upland areas where kids play is not acceptable to me or others I have talked to regarding this topic.

Trying to limit the dumping of pollution by protecting water is like reducing the wearing of jewels in an attempt to reduce theft…

So why make a limited argument that does nothing to stop the “dumping of oil, carcinogens,” or other compounds and items that we don’t want dumped … anywhere?

Logic

No dumping = clean water and clean uplands.

Sticks and Stones…

Why hasn’t name-calling been left back in the fifth grade?

The article states Mr. Oberstar said

“I think our opponents are just in some weird place where they’re frantically trying to fix the facts to the conclusion they’re trying to drive,” he said. “What is it that they think they’re going to gain politically and otherwise by being against motherhood and apple pie?”

I tell my kids not to act all “high-and-mighty.” I think I’ll have to suggest that Mr. Oberstar isn’t for “motherhood and apple pie” just because he is for “clean water.” Give me a break…

My Thoughts. Yes, I have a few…

Name-calling makes your argument look weak on the merits (which it its). Stop…

Pulling on emotions does not address the science or logic, and using emotional responses makes me think your argument is weak (which it is). Use logic, critical thinking, and science to support your position.

I am not against clean water. Actually, I am for the appropriate regulation of water.

However, I have pointed out that regulating water does nothing for keeping upland areas clean, non-polluted, and appropriately used. We need to think bigger and protect the forest, not just the trees “we” are interested in protecting or using…

Summary

What we want to do is stop the dumping of oil, carcinogens, and other “pollution.” We want to stop the dumping everywhere, not just in water because dumping it anywhere will affect Man and the rest of the environment. Why wait the 150 years it might take the pollution to get to the water before being able to do anything about the pollution? That just doesn’t make sense…

Lets regulate the disposal of pollutants so that we can keep waters (including wetlands), uplands, and the air clean.

What say you?

An article on TechCrunch, of all places, discusses segregation…

The author states

A quick look at my browser history shows that in the past 24 hours I’ve visited BBC News Online, the New York Times and the Guardian. Liberal news organisations all. But in that same time period, I’ve also checked in to the Murdoch-owned Sun newspaper, the Drudge Report and even Fox News (several times). According to the study, then, I’m an open minded person with a balanced news diet. But of course I’m nothing of the sort. In reality, my reasons for visiting FoxNews.com are the same as those of most of my cheese-eating, US-hating, Osama-hugging, socialist liberal friends – I’m checking in on the enemy, hoping to find something outrageous to back up my pre-existing biases against the American right. And before any Proud Hannity-waving Patriots reading this get too outraged by that confession, admit it: you visit the Guardian and the New York Times for precisely the same, if polar opposite, reasons.

Ah… No it isn’t.

What you say about your activity and browsing history says something about you and not about anyone else. You see, you aggregate everyone in with you because you are ashamed of your behaviour.

Fine, but don’t assume you are no worse than anyone else. You might be better than some too…

However, you are generalizing, and generalizing causes many problems…

There is ONE race.

The Human Race.

We are not cats and dogs that can not breed. Biologically, there may be differences between different people from different places, but the skin color is not the dividing factor. The skin color is similar to wider hips, different teeth structure, and other anatomical differences.

You see, we are what has evolved through our ancestors. Whatever gene may have given them an adaptive advantage is displayed in us today. It could be an adaptive disadvantage but one that has survived! Color may be one of those, but color is then just like other adaptive advantages depending on when/where our ancestors developed.

Don’t go jump on “black” was here first, so “white” is more advanced!

Hogwash. Meat-eating animals are said, by experts, to have been here before plant eaters. Does that make vegetarians more “advanced?” No, it means that it took time for evolution to allow for the development of the 7 stomachs or other advantage that allows animals to adequately use vegetative matter as a food source… Alternatively, it could mean that it took a while for eating vegetables to be an advantage over eating meat…

Think Critically rather than just assume…

What I think

If you are “white,” go visit Disparaging Terms (no longer active, my apologies–this site was run by Darrell and was an interesting read regarding said terms). Go visit Afrospear. It is another nice site about customs and people you might not be aware of but who are, contrary to what you might have ‘heard,’ exactly like you (just close your eyes and think about what they are going through).

Go visit different sites to LEARN how you have been brainwashed and how you have assumed certain truths even though you have no idea whether what you have been told is true…

Read “Public Opinion” by Walter Lippmann.

Think Critically.

How can you be so ignorant to think a person’s skin color makes them better or worse than another person with another skin color?

Where do you draw the line?

What is an ethnic group? I don’t like the term “race” because I think we are one race-human. What distinguishes us? If a white person marries a black person and has a kid who marries the child of a Japanese person and a Mexican, what is their child’s race? Assuming it is “black” because there is some black in there is just as stupid as labeling them white.

What we need to do…

We need to look at our similarities rather than our differences. We are human.

Looking out for “our own”-whether the “Mexican” hotel workers described in the post on TechCrunch or other “groups-means we are focusing on one part of who we are at the expense of the whole. We will NEVER get to view us as similar if we focus on the differences.

My Solution

One law to guarantee fairness for all. No special treatment for any group–we all have the same protection under the law.

We can’t correct past errors by giving people special treatment or other value. Rather, we have to erase the incorrect action, the cause of the past bad action–the discrimination.

Realistically, we can’t give the USA back to the Souix and other tribes. We can’t track or pay anyone for all past transgressions. What we can do is guarantee, to the best of our ability, that everyone is entitled to the same treatment under the law.

If we don’t attempt to guarantee equal treatment to all, aren’t we focusing special attention on some group? If we focus ‘our’ attention on ‘our group,’ aren’t we guilty of the same behavior that caused ‘us’ the injustice, the discrimination, in the first place? We would be, in effect, putting ‘ourselves’ first ahead of ‘others.’ Isn’t that what we are trying to avoid?

What say you?

There are no pictures of breasts or any other NSFW item here. If you were just looking for that “item,” you can now leave. However, please stay and read the post if you are interested in how you think…

A woman, Jen McCreight, has posted a picture of herself showing some cleavage to oppose a statement made by a male Islamic Cleric. The news post states

“Many women who do not dress modestly… lead young men astray, corrupting their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes,” Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi was quoted last week as saying by Iranian media.

Comedic Insertion

Yes.. Those ARE the two I was looking for…

Sorry, couldn’t help it, there was some “force” affecting me when I made that statement…

If you still don’t get it, well… I can’t help, and I apologize for the use of said language above…

Back to the Story

I am always surprised when a person, religious or not, makes a statement about women and the effects women have on men - different from how women affect men (just to be clear).

Humans have wanted to separate themselves and their “compatriots” into cliques for a very long time. Such separations are to make “us” feel “better” than “them.” It doesn’t matter who “us” and “them” are or whether or not anyone actually is better, but the breakdown of humans into sub-groups continues today.

A woman wears a “skimpy” outfit, and people can imagine what that looks like… Often they are imagining a similar outfit, and they ought to be asking themselves why they have that image associated with that word or phrase.

People think of a “successful man” and often think of a man in a suit and sporting a tie. People think of a “librarian” and an image comes to mind. Why?

Each society has certain similar belief patters, often from religious or social customs. Fashions change because the “new” is “cool” and worn by “that guy” or “that girl” rather than the new “fashion” offering some benefit to the user over the “old” fashion.

We have beliefs that we have due to our parents, our friends, our cliques, our environment, our religion, our society, marketing forces, and other issues we have to deal with as humans. Often, we get “beliefs” because our parents had those beliefs–many times, we haven’t thought why we think that way, we just do…

It is time to start realizing that thinking a girl in a mini-skirt, with thigh-high hose, knee-high boots, and too-tight spaghetti-strap shirt is “loose” or “morally lascivious person” may be wrong. What you are thinking says something about you rather than the person you are looking at while you think those thoughts. You should ask yourself why you have those thoughts and whether those thoughts are generalizations, outright lies, or other baggage that has kept you “prisoner” to your raising (sometimes it is like brainwashing).

Imagine someone coming up to you and yelling, “You are are a stupid (insert your insult here)!” Does the statement, in any way, define you, the person at whom the insult is directed? No. The statement being made says something about the speaker.

Back to Nature

A lion hunts to feed itself and, perhaps, the other lions. The lion does not go out looking for a “hot” meal… (sorry, I’ll try to resist…). If a lion kills a lamb, we don’t blame the lamb for being attractive, for being chased, or for being eaten (sorry, I’m not really trying…). Rather, the lion made a choice on what to kill. The lion may like the taste of lamb, but any lamb would work. The lamb killed was likely sick, injured, or old and not the voluptuous, athletic animal which is better able to evade the lion’s attack.

My Thoughts

Don’t blame the wolf in the sheep’s clothes. The wolf is a wolf and will hunt sheep. It is irrelevant that the religions of the world have problems with the wolf who dresses in a sheep’s clothing (yep, went there again).

Humans will think in sexual terms. We are, after all, animals. We can procreate, or breed as a friend of mine likes to say. Sexual activity feels good because it helps guarantee the continuation of the species.

If you are religious, you have to wonder why God made it feel so good–he could have made it feeling-free. Since it does feel good, you have to admit that God created sexual activity that way for a reason. While it may be to procreate, God may have wanted animals to have a way to get rid of stress. I don’t presume to know all of the reasons, but I can tell you evolution will favor those species that get pleasure from sexual activity. As a matter of fact, I will state that if a certain group of humans got MORE pleasure form sex than others, those populations would tend to grow faster than the others… How is that for behavioral biology? I guess most everyone can grasp that concept…

Summary

Don’t blame women for a man’s activity. Rather, blame the man for not being able to control his emotions and desires. The woman had no way of forcing the man to do anything. Rather, the man chose to act.

This is like arresting prostitutes to stop the desire some men have for sexual activity… It just isn’t going to work folks.

Perhaps the religious community should look to the force for help. If they find the force, they could once again get men to state…

Those aren’t the droids we are looking for…

Bill Thompson has a post over on the BBC where he argues copyright law needs to be severely limited, in his words

This has got to stop. We have to say “enough is enough” to those who hold copyrights in songs and images and words and videos. We must refuse to remake the digital world in order to serve only their interests.

Right…

Why does he argue this is important?

He states

It would be a tragedy if the network the people of East Africa found, now that they have fast fibre links to the rest of the internet, was locked-down, limited and restricted by laws passed to placate fearful Western rights holders and they decided, as a result, that it wasn’t worth joining.

Lack of Logic and Reason

Bill does not seem to realize that freedom is helped by Copyright. Wait, you say. That can’t be! I can’t download all the movies, books, and songs I want! How is that free?!

Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up…

I have an idea for (a book, a movie, or a song). I go through the “trouble” to take the time to create this “content” to release it to the world. I can release it into the Public Domain if I so want, but I might want to be compensated for the “trouble,” time and effort, it took for me to create this “work.” So I release it as copyrighted material.

The material gets out there and is purchased or licensed (for a fee) by those who appreciate the content enough to pay for it. Those who don’t want to buy it are not forced to buy anything.

My “content” goes through marketing, publishing, and distribution–all employing many people. This “content” I copyrighted and made available for purchase or license is helping support jobs (perhaps yours?).

Yet, Bill argues copyright should be severely limited so that “people of East Africa” can have access to all of this data-not to “placate fearful Western rights holders,” but to support their rights to their own copyrighted material that is now available to the rest of the world due to their “fast fibre links to the rest of the [I]nternet.”

People, everything in life is not free. If everything was free, how would you get paid? Nobody would be selling anything?

Does the “content” being a digital file rather than an actual CD or DVD make it “less valuable” for those who want the content or does it simply make the distribution of that content easier and less restrictive?

I don’t think Bill suggests you walk into the local market to steal the candy you want without paying for the merchandise. Yet, he suggests that “digital content” should be freely-available without legal protections?

He states

There is so much more to online life than watching ripped-off copies of big-budget movies or looking at low-resolution cameraphone videos of bands.

What does he mean by “ripped-off?” Does he mean “stolen” or simply “copied?” It makes a difference doesn’t it?

While there IS more to the Internet, Copyright should still protect “content.”

Why?

Google can not copy my material and reproduce it on their site in its entirety. Why? Copyright laws prevent that type of “cut and paste” copying of copyrighted material.

If Copyright were weakened, all of those who create “content” may make NO money from the content itself since Google, Yahoo, or any wahoo with an illegal site (e.g., illegal torrent site for example) could copy all of the content and post it on their site. People would flock to these sites to get all of the data in one place. As a creator of “content,” would you keep creating if all of your work and time was benefiting someone somewhere else rather than you?

Not unless you were already independently wealthy and didn’t care…

BBC…

The post states Bill works for the BBC. I wonder how much of their content copy-righted material Bill has released to YouTube-especially if the BBC was protecting their legal right to some of that material.

Last time I looked, the BBC took Copyright pretty seriously…

Copyright Notice
All rights, including copyright, in the content of these BBC web pages are owned or controlled for these purposes by the BBC.

In accessing the BBC’s web pages, you agree that you may only download the content for your own personal non-commercial use.

Except where expressly stated otherwise, you are not permitted to copy, broadcast, download, store (in any medium), transmit, show or play in public, adapt or change in any way the content of these BBC web pages for any other purpose whatsoever without the prior written permission of the BBC.

Doesn’t that make Bill right?

No. As a matter of fact, that makes Bill wrong.

Here is why…

The legal Copyright lets the BBC (the content provider) dictate who can use what content and how they can use it.

Notice the BBC allows you to ‘

In accessing the BBC’s web pages, you agree that you may only download the content for your own personal non-commercial use.

That likely makes Bill happy since it means the people of East Africa (and everywhere else) can use the copyrighted material owned and provided by the BBC for non-commercial use. This Copyright Law protects the BBC from someone putting all of this data up on their server in hopes of attracting everyone to their site to get content. BBC makes money, Bill can keep his job, and people who have NO creative talent can not benefit by “stealing” everyone’s content.

Bill should be supporting Copyright Law. Just because he doesn’t think everything should have a cost doesn’t mean he is right.

Want to see him agree?

The BBC site states

Bill Thompson is an independent journalist and regular commentator on the BBC World Service programme Digital Planet. He is currently working with the BBC on its archive project.

Ask Bill to agree to not sign any contract for any “independent” journalism that gives the distributor or contractor any ability to limit the distribution, publication, or other legal right to the “content” Bill is asked to create for the company hiring him. Basically, ask Bill to release all of his work into the Public Domain.

My guess is that Bill will not agree to reduce the value of his “time” and “effort” such that he can not afford to do what he likes to do.

In Closing

Copyright Law isn’t the problem. The problem is the removal of the “fair use” clause under USA law and similar provisions for such use under International Law.

If I purchase a DVD of “Criminal Intent,” I feel as if I am buying is the ability to watch the content-the movie. In reality, you are purchasing a license to view the content (movie) on the enclosed media (the DVD). I know, that doesn’t seem logical…

If you copy “Criminal Intent” to your iPhone or other device, you are in violation of the DMCA in the USA and other international laws.

The “fair use” provisions would protect you from prosecution when you copy the movie in case your kids destroy the media on which the content is distributed. Again, the public thinks they are purchasing the right to view the content rather than view the content on the media provided.

While I don’t think any distributor or Copyright holder would sue you if you bought the movie and copied it to any device, they could. Either way, you have NO right to distribute the content over the internet to thousands/millions of other people. You can lend your DVD to others (so long as you don’t view the content while you have loaned the DVD out to your friend). A single person still controls the media and the content on that media–remember, you have no right to charge admission for others to view that material…

Taking gum without paying for it is a crime in the UK. Taking content without a legal right is also a crime. Just because we don’t want to pay for a Jaguar doesn’t mean we can just go take it without paying. Just because I think East Africa might appreciate Bill’s work doesn’t mean that he is willing to give away his work without being paid.

Even if Bill gives away his work for free, Copyright Law lets HIM decide that nobody else can sell his material either–guaranteeing the “free” nature of that material.

You see? Copyright allows the content creator to decide whether or not to protect the content and to what extent such content is to be protected.

Doesn’t that just seem fair?

Australia has banned, yes…banned, small-breasted women from appearing topless and in pornography because, as stated in the Inquisitr…

The ban (RC) on small breasted women in adult publications has been made by the Australian Classification Board allegedly on the grounds that such images could be construed as child pornography, even where those publications comply with American law and keep certification that performers are over 18.

Wow… Australian governmental officials try to make women realize what “real” woman look like (those without plastic surgery or those suffering from Anorexia) while baring “small-breasted” women because they look “young” due to their breast size…

Specifically, Think about the Children states…

The National Classification Code dictates that anything that describes or depicts a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not) in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult is Refused Classification.

Again, wow…

Ignorance and paranoia abound. Do people, or parlimentarians, stick their head in the sand and hope to save the world by trying to get everyone else to stick their head in the sand too?

Simply amazing…

A news story by Reuters states

Spring comes about 10 days earlier in the United States than it did two decades ago, a consequence of climate change that favors invasive species over indigenous ones, scientists said on Tuesday.

Yes… We again look at a climate change over a short period of time. While this MAY mean something, we are at the beginnings of Climate Change Science.

We are, however, affecting our environment. We release carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere, water, and soil. To assume that these releases do not have an affect is, in my opinion, wrong.

However, to say that any such change will “damage” the earth is just as, in my opinion, wrong.

Why?

Was the asteroid/meteor that hit the earth about 65 million years ago (by best estimates) create a pollution event that let Humans evolve and become what we are today? In the past, did “supervolcanoes” create events that altered global temperature? Did fires or natural populations alter plant species/densities and alter global temperatures? Did that “destroy” earth or affect humans?

Affecting humans in a way we do not like is not necessarily “bad” for the planet is it? Think about it…

The post continues to state

Based on Thoreau’s notes and research by botanists in the area, Davis and other scientists figure that about 30 percent of the plant species Thoreau saw are locally extinct and a further 30 percent are in scarce supply, crowded out by southern invaders that can now thrive in New England.

Have these species that are described as “extinct” or “in scarce supply” just moved north and are no longer “in the area?” If so, they aren’t extinct or in scarce supply… Those statements would be misleading. Could we have created a shift in the climate’s temperatures so that the plants migrated? Sure.

However, to say that such migration is “bad” is putting a human value on a change in temperatures. Just as it may limit our snowboarding in California, it may allow other species to flourish or create opportunities for other living creatures–even if we don’t value those living creatures…

If affecting the environment for our benefit is “bad,” why is maintaining the environment in a stable range that is below global temperatures on a global scale a “good” thing just because we like it like this or expect it to be this way?

Try to remember geologic time rather than temperatures over the past 4,000 years…

Evolution fits in how?

When global temperatures and conditions change, living creatures die, cope, or evolve. Just because we say rising temperatures are “bad” for us because we will lose homes along the coast, lose snow sports in many areas, and lose other “valuable” things does not mean that such rising temperatures are bad for the Earth or outside of the normal. Remember, these events are when Evolution tends to jump into overdrive…

Do a Yahoo, Google, or Bing search for what happened about 65 million years ago…

Think critically, please..

I have mentioned before that Apple uses the iPad, iPod, and iPhone to further their profits. Not so surprising since Apple is a corporation out to make money.

However, Apple is acting in a manner that makes Apple look good in the public’s eye while making third-party developers look “bad.”

“Let me explain… No, there is too much, let me sum up…”

According to MacWorld

Marco Arment, developer of the popular Instapaper apps, points out in a post on his blog that iBooks makes use of a significant number of undocumented functions, and that a third-party developer’s inability to do the same makes “all third-party reading-related apps second-class citizens.” iBooks’s ability to let you adjust the brightness of the screen inside the app—without having to jump to the iPad’s Settings application—is an example of functionality not available to third-party programmers.

Two potential problems arise from this disparity: first, as Arment points out, Apple’s own apps create expectations that diminish the production value of third-party software. Since normal users are not well-acquainted with the subtleties of programming, it’s difficult to explain that an app’s inability to match the functionality provided by its Apple’s counterparts is not due to a lack of ability or interest on the developer’s part, but, rather, to the legalities of participating in the App Store. One could also argue that private frameworks give Apple an unfair advantage, especially as its interests expand from the core device functionality into other areas—as with the recent introduction of iBooks.

Most non-tech people say so what? I get what I want, and the third party developers can do other things…

Technically inclined folk may disagree… Why should I, a developer, develop for a device if the Company whose device I am developing for is making my apps appear inferior to their own–not because I do not code as well but because I am prevented from using their function calls if I want them to approve my app…?

If Apple continues, those developers may leave Apple on principle. Most may stay for the cash, but I hope everyone, techy and average citizen, realizes that Apple isn’t caring so much for your desires as Apple is caring for Apple. Sounds like insurance companies, Wall-street types, and politicians–all groups I want to distance myself from at this point in my life.

It is so bad, I bet lawyer jokes are getting a backseat to Apple jokes.

About Lawyers…

I saw a post on MacWorld by one NeoSurge…

I also hear a lot of people whining about this, and this article just makes the circle of whining increase. People that are not engineers, and not informed read this article and spite Apple without fully understanding what Apple is providing.

Apple is the provider, they are providing a stable, reliable environment for applications to thrive on, and a platform that simplifies and facilitates developer to end user sales. As mentioned briefly in this article and by the commenter above, dreyfus, private frameworks are a necessity, the only way to test them is give them some use.

Apple does this by publishing their own applications using these private frameworks.

The bottom line is that Apple wants to (try) to keep the experience for developers and end-users the same, which is a good, clean, reliable experience with all the applications, with the SDK, and guaranteeing forward compatibility. The only way they can do that, is the path they have chosen.

Let me put this in a way that makes more sense to more people… why in this article are you not complaining about Apple’s “Phone” application using private frameworks? Or their Settings app? Well, you might say that it’s because those aren’t on the “appstore” and you would be right, but the bottom line is that Apple is the provider, they need to provide a high quality of service in their platform, their OS, their SDK, their Applications, and to end users. Use an Android for a month and you’ll appreciate that much more about what Apple has done.

Not surprising, I disagree…

I disagree both about the suggestion that “educated” and “intelligent” people already agree with Apple’s practice and about there not being any logic or validity to the comments being made by some, even if the few.

Lets start with Logic… Or the lack of logic…

The suggested argument is that “Apple wants to (try) to keep the experience for developers and end-users the same…..”

Why does that prevent the use of private function calls, private frameworks, or making those private functions/frameworks public? Nobody is arguing that those “non-public” functions/frameworks are unreliable or not capable of being understood by developers… Remember, Apple still has to approve the app, and Apple could deny approval for apps that did not function or that were “confusing.”

There are plenty of applications available for computer OSes that allow users to control settings without using the OS-providers apps while using their underlying programming (altering settings without opening the OS control panel in Windows for example…). This is done in OS/X as well.

People are complaining about Apple not allowing others to use those “private functions/frameworks” that could allow another dialer. Again, if Apple is approving everything, they would control whether the replacement application for the dialer was functional… Rather, Apple wants a unified appearance at the expense of the developer (and some of us technically-inclined and otherwise intelligent users/programmers).

Why the money-chasing lawyers care…

Can Apple act in this way? Sure–not much prevents a firm from tying software to a device at the expense of third-party apps-except … (United States v. Microsoft on Wikipedia; Findlaw Analysis; Law Article; US Court of Appeals Case; and diagram used to illustrate issues) [emphasis added by me...]

United States v. Microsoft was a set of consolidated civil actions filed against Microsoft Corporation pursuant to the Sherman Antitrust Act on May 18, 1998 by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and 20 U.S. states. Joel I. Klein was the lead prosecutor. The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft abused monopoly power on Intel-based personal computers in its handling of operating system sales and web browser sales. The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system. Bundling them together is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft’s victory in the browser wars as every Windows user had a copy of Internet Explorer. It was further alleged that this unfairly restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera) that were slow to download over a modem or had to be purchased at a store. Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft’s conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturer (OEMs), and Microsoft’s intent in its course of conduct.

According to the posts, it doesn’t appear as if Apple manipulated APIs to favor its software… Smart attorneys find loopholes. People commenting on the issue appear to state that Apple simply did not give developers access to “private frameworks.” The technicality makes no difference to some, but it may make a difference to lawyers.

Summary

I am not making any legal allegations against Apple or their practices, but I, personally, don’t like or approve of their practice. Your mileage, and opinion, may differ. I accept “many” folk will love what Apple does and suggest that they like what Apple does–I don’t mind that actually. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

However, saying people who disagree with Apple (or the majority of the population even–as in politics) over a ’subjective’ issue are “wrong” or “not educated” (or smart) does confound the intellect …

What say you?

According to the news, “Two police officers who had pulled over a suspicious vehicle were shot and wounded by the driver, and the suspect was killed when the officers returned fire, Baltimore police said Sunday.”

Police Commissioner Frederick H. Bealefeld III stated

the officers who were shot and other officers who have been working to get guns off the street and make the city safer. He has directed officers to target enforcement efforts toward “bad guys with guns” in the city long plagued by violence.

Nowhere in the article is it stated whether the gun was registered to the owner/wielder or whether this was an illegal gun in the hand of a criminal. If it was an illegal gun, where did the gun come from?

Many seem to come from police sales…

Funny that…

Starbucks is getting heat right now over people openly carrying firearms into their stores where it is legal to open carry firearms anywhere unless prohibited by legal means. Gun blogs, such as Alphecca, are posting the story and providing discussion about the issue.

The Brady Campaign is using a scare tactic to try an limit the carrying into Starbuck locations. If Starbuck caves into the Brady Campaign, I’ll never buy at Starbucks again…

Here is my issue…

Statements such as the following by Paul Helmke lack any critical thinking…

The decision by Starbucks to welcome guns in its restaurants where the law permits represents a public health risk. While food-borne illnesses are estimated to kill 5,000 Americans each year, more than 30,000 of us are killed annually by firearms. Guns represent a public health threat at least as great as food poisoning. Firearm fatalities are consistently ranked as one of the leading causes of death among young people in America. As Dr. David Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health wrote in 2004, “Across U.S. regions and states, where there are more guns, children are at a significantly greater risk of dying.”

Showing large numbers of deaths without a reason
Of the 30k that are killed, lets see what constitutes that 30,000 deaths…

Newbius has a page that discusses the CDC statistics on deaths. Go read it and be educated… That is government data there, and the data is not provided by the “gun nuts”–whoever they may be.

It is all a lack of Critical Thinking
The reasoning seems to be that firearms could cause death, so we should deny entry of such ‘dangerous’ items into Starbucks…

Should we not allow anyone to enter Starbucks since we all carry E. coli? Should we deny entry to those 1,000,000 or so individuals who carry the virus that causes AIDS? Should we deny entry to … You get the idea… SCARE TACTIC!

Don’t get me started about denying drive-thru service since automobile accidents cause about 35,000 deaths per year in the USA…

Don’t be fooled. You are just as likely to be shot by someone in Starbucks as you are contracting AIDS because Starbucks serves those with the virus that causes AIDS. You are much more likely to die in a car accident than end up with the two examples from the last sentence–perhaps you should stop driving to be safe?

Think critically. Fight for everyone’s rights rather tan jump on a bandwagon that has no thought to their reasoning–especially when there is NO logic for the reasons they give…

I saw the video on Wave. It does look like a new way to communicate.

I wonder just how “new” this is or whether it is a new way to display data.

Wikis are everywhere. E-mail is everywhere. IM is everywhere… You get the idea.

Is this a database driven wiki that simply includes e-mail and IM? Is it more?

What happens when your internet connection goes down? Do you still have all the data or do you have to be on-line to use it? Is there a way to use peer-to-peer communication in case Google goes down (as unlikely as that might be…)?

Why do we want all of our communications public? Haven’t we already seen pictures and statements come back to haunt enough people? Do we think we won’t make any “mistake” or statement or picture that can be misinterpreted?

While interesting, do we want to let Google farm all of that data and/or sell it to others?

I need to read the license to see who owns the content and who has the right to use the content for what purpose(s).

Big brother may be an overstatement. However, maybe it isn’t.

Have you looked to see?

You may be asking why anyone would carry a loaded gun in public.

Of course, the police do it every day, and most people have no problem with the police carrying guns around in broad daylight.

Why are “normal civilians” any different? It might be that the person carrying the firearm has more training than the police. You never know. The person carrying the firearm may have no training. Funny how that works…

A story carried by the Associated Press states

Meleanie Hain made headlines after she attended her then 5-year-old daughter’s soccer game in a park on Sept. 11, 2008, with her 9mm Glock pistol in plain view holstered on her hip, upsetting other parents.

The county sheriff, Michael DeLeo, revoked her gun-carrying permit nine days later.

Hain successfully appealed the permit revocation, although the judge who restored the permit questioned her judgment and said she had “scared the devil” out of other people at the game.

Unfortunately, the article alleges their kids ran from the house yelling that their dad had shot their mom in a “murder-suicide.”

Back to the Issue…

When you see a policeman carrying a gun, nobody panics even though we don’t really know that the person in the uniform and carrying the gun is a police officer. We assume the person is an officer and we expect them to carry guns and know how to use firearms.

Our expectations kill us and appear to force us to not think critically.

Many of those “upset parents” at the soccer game likely know her but were scared by the “open carry” which is legal in many jurisdictions.

An attorney with the Brady Center (anti-gun group), one David Vice, was quoted in the article

“It is a case that calls out for common sense,” Brady Center attorney Daniel Vice said then. “It’s ridiculous to bring a gun to a child’s soccer game.”

I sincerely hope that nobody wants to make a point at a game where his child is running around playing soccer unless one educated, knowledgeable, and trained civilian is carrying a firearm with a valid concealed carry permit.

I’d hate to think that anyone’s child had to die because “we” were afraid that “we” couldn’t appropriately and carefully use a firearm to protect the public even though we are not “police officers.”

If someone was to pull a gun in public and start shooting, how long would it take the police to arrive?

What would you think of a civilian, your neighbor perhaps, if they pulled a gun and shot the lunatic that opened up at a kid’s soccer game with an uzi? Hero or someone lacking in “common sense?”

I’ll tell you what I think…

I wrote earlier about what is “scary.” I still think we act childish–flippant, critical, belittling, and other derogatory actions. Why do we act this way?

The media shows it is acceptable and, even, profitable.

Joy Behar on Glen Beck - “I think he is frequently rediculous. somebody who frequently yells, “Fire!” in a crowded theater. But I believe in free speech, and, as long as there are no weapons involved, he is fine.

Remember Joy (and Glen), that weapons don’t get up by themselves and shoot people. People, often when mad and upset, pick up guns and kill people. So communication between people would be better if it was civil.

Calling people “ridiculous” and “stupid” does not solve any problems. Calling Glen ridiculous when she says the same type of things he says appears to say “It is okay if I do it but not if you do it.”

Sort of like Polanski…

Instead of “joining the crowd,” why doesn’t someone confront this media blitz that generates profits by appealing to the entertainment crowd with a show that promotes a serious discussion without detracting from the discussion?

Realize that we are over 300 million people. Why does anyone expect that every other person (all 299,999,999 of them) will or should think exactly like me? Why is it that “they,” whoever “they” are, are always the ones who are “wrong?”

Why can’t they just have a difference of opinion that might be based on the experiences of their life? Why do most people have to classify something else they have not experienced and do not understand as “stupid” or “ridiculous?”

Examples

Abortion, Firearms and Hunting, Politics, Environment, Money, …

The list goes on.

People can be for or against each of these “issues.” Each person may have a personal story about why they have their opinion. However, most people appearing on television or in the media appear to think the “other side” is just wrong without any concerted effort to understand their position.

Where is the empathy?

I guess I shouldn’t expect empathy from everyone. However, where is the civility?

Do you think getting mad is solving any issues?

Actually, practice shows it does…

Here is the rub.

People accept a lack of civility as a “First Amendment Right.” People accept people having a right to be critical of others and to exclude them from “their group.” People expect the freedom to (whatever) without any regard to how the exercise of that freedom may affect anyone else.

People who complain get results because people cave to their yelling, criticism, or other action, and I think caving in to this type of behavior is rewarding bad behavior rather than rewarding good behavior.

Exercising their First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech may alienate a child and, in effect, help them find an outlet using violence. Virginia Tech, Long Island, and other recent examples come to mind.

Often, the person committing these violent outbursts was a victim many times over prior to committing any violent act. At some point, most people will “pop.”

Don’t focus on the act–however violent and terrible. Focus on what caused the act, who is responsible, what helped cause the problem, and how can we change so that these outbursts are less likely to happen.

cough

Calling people “stupid” and “ridiculous” does not solve any problem, and speaking in those terms says a lot about the speaker and nothing about those spoken about.

However, most listeners and viewers don’t realize that people speaking say something about the person speaking. Rather, people seem to think that the spoken work (much like the printed word on the Internet) is full of truth.

Where is critical thought?

Please teach your children that someone saying, “X is stupid” only means that a person said “X is stupid” and does not mean that “X is stupid.” Rather it means the speaker is hoping that others will think X is stupid, and the real question is why does the speaker want people to think that way? What do they have to gain?

And you all thought putting a “spin” on a story was only what politicians did? Funny, I seem to recall that putting “spin” on a story started in school…

Unfortunately, there is no real focus to teach kids to think critically–anywhere that I can find.

Summary

Need proof?

Even the Library of Congress, on a page dealing with the discussion of the Emancipation Proclamation, stated that the Emancipation Proclamation ended slavery in the United States of America.

If you think that is true, you need to go read the document… You might be surprised.

We are “taught” things that we accept as “truths.” What we should be doing is accepting what others say and then questioning…

Critical thinking and Empathy - the only way to enlightenment.

I don’t understand those who say, “He is a genius, you should forget about that old crime…”

Polanski used his position and influence to have sex with a 13-year old girl. This is different than two 13-year old kids trying to “get it on.”

Wikipedia states Polanski plead guilty of “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor,” a 13-year old girl when he was 44-years old.

“Rich” and “famous” people are “shocked” and request his immediate release. Makes me wonder what they are up to…

The Associated Press states

Debra Tate, the sister of Roman Polanski’s second wife, actress Sharon Tate, says Polanski is brilliant and a “good guy” …

She further states, get ready for it, …

Polanski did not forcibly have sex with the girl, calling it a “consensual matter.”

Perhaps Ms. Tate needs to go read the testimony before the Grand Jury… The Smoking Gun has a good post about what was said along with a copy of the document.

He plead guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor–a crime.

Carolyn Plocher, from NewsBusters, stated people seem to support Polanski

One such person is Tom O’Neill, the senior editor of In Touch Weekly. On September 28, during a CNN interview, O’Neill first claimed that Polanski “seduced” the young girl when it’s obvious after reading her grand jury testimony that she was raped. Also, during that same interview, O’Neil argued that Polanski shouldn’t be extradited to the U.S. for a trial.

Why does everyone think he, or anyone, should be above the law?

Where is Steven Seagal when you need him?

Polanski needs to be convicted and sent to jail.  Perhaps those in jail will be as kind as Hollywood–but I doubt it.