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 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.

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?

LOTRO is Lord of The Rings On-line, a Massively Multi-Player Role-Playing Game (MMRPG) set in the Tolkien Universe with stories and play based on the works of J.R.R. Tolkien.

The game lets you play several races (Man, Elf, Dwarf, and Hobbit) and play several classes (Guardian, Champion, Warden, Hunter, Lore-Master (LM), Burglar, Rune-Keeper (RK), Minstrel, and Captain). Each class can use different types of armor (e.g., LMs and RKs can ony use light armor; Minstrel, Hunter, Wardens, and Burglars can use Medium armor; and Captains, Guardians, and Champions can use Heavy Armor). If you can use Heavy Armor, you can use Medium and Light armor as well, although they will not provide you with the same defense (they provide less).

When you join a fellowship (a group of players trying to accomplish a quest or a goal), you likely have a mixed group of races and classes–one or two front-liners, one or two healers, and one or two ranged attackers.

When you defeat an enemy, it is possible to allow everyone to “roll” on the resulting loot (treasure dropped by enemies or stored in chests).

The question a good player asks is “Do I need that?”

Most players don’t ask that….they just hit “roll”…

Lets say your fellowship is comprised of:

• Guardian, level 64;
• Champion, level 63;
• Captain, level 61;
• Hunter, level 60;
• Rune Keeper, level 58; and
• Lore Master, level 58.

There is NO reason for the Guardian or Hunter to roll an light armor shoes that can be used by those of level 58 and up. You see, the Guardian and Hunter will want Heavy and Medium armor shoes, respectively. Also, the higher-level characters likely have better armor than that which has dropped anyway–meaning the lvl 60 Hunter likely already has shoes that provide better armor and other benefits than those provided by the level 58 shoes that are available…

If they roll on them when the Rune Keeper and Lore Master can use them now, and not use all the medium and heavy armor that may fall, they are being selfish and greedy–in my opinion.

I don’t know how else to describe it.

Similarly, the RK and LM have no reason to roll an any medium or heavy armor, especially if it is “Bind on Acquire” (that means that item is bound to the character that wins the item and can not be used by other characters).

If you really need that 10 silver pieces, at least offer to not roll for 10 silver pieces… There is no need to take something you are not going to use and simply sell to the merchant for 10 silver when another member of your group CAN and WOULD use the items on their person…

That is simply the right thing to do …

What say you?

It happens often, and sometimes we are to blame…

I was visiting a site for teachers, and I noticed a few threads. One deals with a student that “poops in their pants” and the other deals with a child that “drools” and spreads said drool over their desk.

Let me show you a response to the first:

i had a pooper several years ago (i teach 6th!)

it was a medical condition….can’t remember the actual name of it–something like endocrinosis (that’s not it!) encropsis….something….

anyway, he really didn’t know he was going or had control–but he would know he had gone–but he just sat in it–and smelled! whoowee!

that kid had parents that were WAY too old to be having kids so they had a “different” parenting style with him. for example, they took him to a 9:00 showing of a rated R movie on a school night–not abusive “bad” parents–just…..different.

anyway, my kid ended up in the TLC room (ED students) but it wasn’t the pooping that caused this–they had been working on that referral process in 5th grade too.

good luck!

Yes, the teacher said, “I had a pooper.”

Here is another…

As the school year has progressed, I’ve been learning more about my students (I’ve been looking at their cums, IEPs, etc.). I have one student, a male, who has a one on one aide. His IEP is as thick as a book! Anyway, I knew right off the bat that he had some form of ADHD, and that was documented in the IEP. It says he has sensory difficulties, ADHD, and processing difficulties. He is pretty smart, though. As I talked to some of his past teachers, they all told me they had a terrible time with him because he would poop his pants, starting from 1st grade on up! His former teachers would even find his “stuff” in the room (one time behind a bookcase! EEEWWW!). One teacher called the union, the health department, but no one could do anything about it.

There is a total of ONE LINE on his entire IEP that mentions “bowel problems”. There were no behavior modifications for this. Meanwhile, I know of at least 2 occasions where he has pooped his pants in my classroom - 4th grade! He refuses to acknowledge it happened, even though we smell it. Little parent support - parents have their head in the sand, don’t know what they think when he comes home after sitting in his “stuff” all day! They won’t even take him to the doctor to see if it is physiological or emotional (I think emotional). Don’t you think this kid should be in an ED class of some kind? Tomorrow I willl send him to the office if he does it again, and let them handle it. What would you suggest? Haven’t met the parents yet. Should I call another IEP for him, even though he’s not due for one until April? What if the parents don’t care? How can I deal with this for the rest of the year???

My Comment

No, I don’t think he needs to be in an ED class of some kind… Perhaps you need to act mature and deal with the situation like an adult. Complaining that YOU have to deal with the situation is not helping the student or you. Rather, your frustration and lack of patience and understanding is the problem. If you understood what encopresis was, you would know that up to 2% of “kids,” up to age 17 even, suffer from this medical condition (that can be treated and cured).

Instead, most of the teachers seemed to say make an issue out of it in class. Make the child acknowledge he did poop in his pants! As if any child wants to acknowledge to the whole class they just pooped in their pants.

Again, encopresis is a medical condition, and the child may not feel it or smell it due to the condition. While YOU, the teacher, do not understand that issue, I bet you understand a situation where people who live around a paper mill no longer smell the mill… If you can understand that, you should understand the child in your class…

Call a meeting with the parents. Explain the issue and show them what encopresis means. Ask them if they are seeing a medical doctor (physician) and recommend they see one if they currently are not discussing the issue with a physician.

Simple to solve that crap… Just be patient with them as the treatment progresses just as everyone will be patient with you, the teacher, as you try to not be so judgmental about those who you are supposed to be supporting and teaching…

Drool

The second posting dealt with a child that drooled on their desk and spread the saliva over the desk.

The poster original poster stated

I had a student (1st grade) taking the saliva out of his mouth and spreading it all over the activity table like finger paint. YUCK. It is a kid with severe food allergies and the class families go out of their way to keep this kid safe. Then he thinks nothing of spreading his germs to the others. 20 years of teaching and I have never had a kid take the drool out of their mouth and spread it around.

A comment followed that, in part, stated

that kid had parents that were WAY too old to be having kids so they had a “different” parenting style with him. for example, they took him to a 9:00 showing of a rated R movie on a school night–not abusive “bad” parents–just…..different.

Yes, parents that are “too old” to be having kids leads to kids having problems and “issues.” I’m not even going to address the judgment of the parenting style comment regarding the 9:00pm, R-rated movie… On this “rating” topic, I think the “rating” board is rather conservative (as I think, obviously, is the teacher).

The funniest yet most offensive comment was

All I can see is ewwwwwwwwwwwwww! Gagging as I read.

Yes, constructive commenting…

My response?

I hate to say it, but why does a teacher respond with

” All I can see is ewwwwwwwwwwwwww! Gagging as I read.”

Children are not adults, and they do not think as we do. Some children have development problems, and we should not expect them to “act” or behave like everyone else.

Yet, you will kiss someone else and share the same bacteria that is in their mouth and, likely, think nothing of it or even enjoy it… Logic in our thinking, please…

Simply make him/her clean the table and explain why such behavior is “not allowed” in your class. Punishment may not help in certain situations where a medical and/or behavioral reason explains the issue…such as encopresis (soiling of the pants by those who are already potty-trained).

Learn that your values are yours and should not be “taught” to the kids. What? Exclude a child from a group or embarrass them due to some behavior? Right, lets teach our kids that type of behavior…

Instead, we should understand their issues (at least try to understand them). A thread on here once said “I have a pooper too,” and I read that and cringed. Right, as if all of us “teachers” are perfect… The term is encopresis, and it is a medical issue that generally can be solved. Publicizing the issue and embarrassing the child does not help. Rather, that type of behavior shows an inability to be part of a solution in an appropriate way (and says something about you as a Teacher and a person doesn’t it?).

Your “drooling” child could have a behavioral problem and/or a medical problem. Talk to the parent(s), but why embarrass the child? That solves nothing and causes many other problems–social stigma, cliques, bullying, …

Talk to the child, explain your rules and reasoning, and discuss the issue with a parent or with all parents.

Whatever you decide, public embarrassment is NOT appropriate and leads to many more problems than it solves.

Summary

The teachers had not experienced anything like they were seeing (or smelling). Yet, they, like many humans, tend to jump to conclusions regarding the children, the parents, the problem, and possible solutions rather than identify the problem (such as encopresis) and how to constructively deal with the issue facing them and their classes.

Teachers are not expected to know everything, but they are expected to learn and discuss relevant issues without assuming… We know what it means when we assume…

Teachers are supposed to NOT act like kids or high-schoolers. Teachers should not want to “make an example” out of a child since such action leads to bullying, social stigma, and cliques. The teacher should want to solve the problem 1-on-1 with the student. I guess it is possible the teacher would prefer the principal deal with the teacher’s issues in front of the whole faculty… No, what was I thinking?

So, teachers… Please research.

A simple google or yahoo for “poop pants 10-year old” would bring up references to encopresis and, likely, your forum topic. How hard would it be for you to look at those definitions, call a meeting with the parents, and suggest some medical care/follow-up?

Regarding the child that drooled, I think the simple response is to make the child clean up the saliva and desktop, discuss why such behavior is not allowed in the class, and call a parent meeting if the child continues with the behavior-in case there is a medical or psychological reason for the student’s behavior.

Please tell me you wouldn’t have reacted like most of those other responders… Identify the problem, solve the problem. Creating more problems for the child creates by publicly getting the child to admit their actions, embarrassing the child, or other “punishment” may more problems for you since you will have to deal with name-calling, social cliques, bullying, and other kid-related problems.

Please tell me that you as adults don’t continue to name-call? If so, please look up bullying and other psychology-related posts that discusses why people name-call or attempt to make others “look bad.” You might learn something and become more mature-not to mention a better person.

What say you?

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?

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..

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 listened with interest to Radio Times, a radio show on public radio today (2/16/2010). I found myself trying to think critically on the issue–childhood obesiety. I feel like there are a few items that could have been dealt with better or that were omitted from the discussion even if the issue was ‘brought up’ in the episode.

I felt as if those interviewed were looking to provide an answer as to why “we” are overweight and how “we” can solve that problem. Topics ranged from gender, ethnic group, etc… Why not simply say they ingested more calories than they expended?

Those on the show stated that “times have changed” and that television, the Internet, … all mean we have less time to do what our grandparents did. While I disagree on that–my grandparents didn’t have chicken at the store, they had to raise it, kill it, cook it… I recall them saying they had less free time because they had none of the conveniences that we have today…

Times sure have changed. However, my grandparents use to say that you had to work and care about yourself and those you love–don’t expect the government or your employer to look after your best interests (they went through the Great Depression).

Today, “we” expect too much… We expect music to be ‘free’ on the internet, we expect to have a car, a house, medical insurance, etc… Why?

Medical insurance was started during WWII when there were wage freezes. Employers created a way to “pay” people more that did not violate the rules and offered health insurance as part of their employment. There was no desire to give health insurance…. Rather, companies wanted to attract better employees–paying more or providing health insurance were the same thing. Providing medical insurance had nothing to do with “people deserve medical care.” Yet, society at large now sees medical insurance as a necessity for everyone.

We think “we” are so educated and “advanced” that everyone should have food, a home, medical insurance, … I too think it would be nice to have ‘free’ medical insurance and care. However, how do we fund these “expectations?” How do we pay for it all? You can’t have everything at no cost–either we pay directly or indirectly (taxes).

Personal responsibility should be taught. You want “this?” Go work for it… Go earn it… You can’t just go ‘take’ it (as is seen with music sharers and the like–that is like walking into the music store and walking out with a Vinyl Record without paying for it even if “we” don’t “see” it that way today).

I hear people say, “But not everyone can afford it.” I agree. However, I have always obtained insurance–it wasn’t always cheap, and it wasn’t always what I wanted. I’m a diabetic, and I have to have a company provide it since insurance companies will not give me long-term insurance as an individual due to my diabetes. I can create my own company and get it that way. There are options, even if they aren’t very affordable. Again, why does it have to be affordable? How do you get $10 of fish for $5? I’ll tell you–you don’t. You get less fish.

The issue with obesity, childhood or otherwise, is more caloric intake than caloric expenditure. This may be due to unhealthy food, portion size, sedentary life style, or any combination of those, or other, issues.

It may not really be an issue of ‘healthy’ food versus ‘unhealthy’ food is it? If ‘healthy’ food may not make us ‘feel full’ (as is seen with sushi vs. McDonalds Big Mac and Fries), might a person eat more calories (sushi) to feel as full as a person who eats the Big Mac? I would love to see an unbiased study looking at that issue…

Times have changed. They sure have changed (internet, television, …) Why do we think that ‘it should be easier’ for us to feed our families healthy food? Why pass on that responsibility to the food grower, manufacturer, distributor, packager, etc.? Why isn’t it OUR responsibility as parents or as the parent? The guests stated it shouldn’t be so hard… Why should it be easy? Why do we have an expectation of “easy?” This is what I do not understand… If there is such a market for this healthy eating, why don’t your guests start the company? It might be that providing that type of food isn’t so inexpensive. I don’t know. I’m not in the food industry, and I’m not a farmer.

Has anyone told their kids “don’t worry about work, life will be easy. Your employer/government will take care of you.”? I doubt any parent would provide that advice to their children. Yet, here I was hearing that “it shouldn’t be so hard” to raise a family today” and that “others” should make it easier for me… All on public radio.

Teach children about portion size, calories, food groups, and medical/scientific facts. I would guess that most parents don’t realize what portion size is appropriate (for them or their kids).

Why do “we” feel a need to make others do what is best for us? We, as individuals and as a society, should welcome the responsibility of doing what is best for us.

Instead of saying “companies can’t make this,” “you have to make that,” “you can’t advertise to…,” or “you need to have more ‘healthy’ alternatives,” I’d love us to teach our kids, and ourselves, that marketing tries to get us to buy their product. We need to teach our kids that the kids on television may not even like what they are eating–kids believe what they see at those ages, and we, as parents, need to educate them.

If we don’t teach personal responsibility re: food and tell our kids that others are responsible for their weight, what are we telling the public at large about responsibility re: anything else? What about education? Is it the school’s fault if the kids fail? Is it the same answer if the kid never works on becoming educated? Is it the school’s responsibility to raise the children or simply to provide a forum and location for education?

Putting the responsibility for “what is best for me” on someone else absolves me of any failure since “it wasn’t up to me.” However, the fault IS with the end-user since the end-user made a choice–to buy, eat, chew, swallow, … the food in question. It may be a medical issue (hormones, digestive tract issue, etc.), but those that are obese have some responsibility for their condition–whether a cause (due to eating) of it or a responsibility to care for a medical condition.

My oldest child–fed entirely on breast milk for 18 months–is now at 95% on both height and weight. My youngest, premature by 90 days, is fit and trim at the 50% mark for weight and 75% for height. Generalizations about breast milk and weight are not, I think, appropriate—especially where some mothers can’t produce, some babies won’t attach, … Address the issue–caloric intake vs. caloric expenditures. While other issues, ethnic groups, social and economic status, etc. may have influences on what and how we eat, we are all human.

On a side note, I’d love for this “race” word to go away like the “sex” form on governmental forms (they mean gender)… Neither are appropriate. We are all human. It isn’t as if we are cats and dogs that can’t breed. Why do “we” need to distinguish ourselves from others? Doing so, in my opinion, is part of the problem… If we were all “the same group” and all the rules applied to all of us in that group, what is the problem? Yes, idealistic. However, which world is better?

At some point, it becomes about realizing that “others” can make decisions that “I” think are wrong, and I can still let them make those choices rather than removing choices from their plate. The guests stated they were not suggesting we remove choices. I agree.

However, by suggesting that the responsibility is not ours, you minimize the probability of success–it would be like giving a hungry person a fish rather than teaching him to fish. The person still eats, but the person fishing says it is their responsibility to catch the fish while the other says nobody gave me any fish today. While they may both go hungry, one can go out and do something about their hunger while the other simply waits for someone else to “solve” their problem.

Calories are calories. Lets simply reduce the amount ingested and try to increase the caloric expenditure through exercise. Less in and more out = less weight.

What say you?

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.

Really.

If we do have “fundamental human rights, wouldn’t it be something like the right to a chance at life or a right to an opportunity to (whatever)?

How is it we, opposed to other animals and plants, have some “fundamental human right?

I’ll tell you…

We define it.

However, we don’t have a “fundamental human right” if we define it.

Do we?

I don’t think so…

Reuters has an article that states

Leo Bryant, a lead researcher on a World Health Organisation study on population growth and climate change, said the stigma attached to birth control in both developing and developed countries was hindering vital progress.

“We are certainly not advocating that governments should start telling people how many children they can have,” said Bryant, an advocacy manager at the family planning group Marie Stopes International, who wrote a commentary in the Lancet medical journal on Friday.

“The ability to choose your family size…is a fundamental human right. But lack of access to family planning means millions of people in developing countries don’t have that right,” he told Reuters.

China limited the number of children people could have, and don’t we acknowledge that, at some point, we will have to limit births? If not, how do we afford to feed, house, medicate, care for, …

You get the picture.

Don’t you?

Google Books, Google’s digitizing of all books, has a settlement offer from those that argue that Google has violated Copyright law.

Why would I oppose a settlement?
There are supporters and opponents to the settlement.  The AP has a good article describing the issues.  Give it a good read.

Here is what bothers me a bit.  The Settlement Agreement states

3.5   Right to Remove or Exclude.

(a)(i) Right to Remove. A Rightsholder of a Book may direct that his, her or its Book be Removed. If a Book has not yet been Digitized when Google receives a Removal request for that Book, Google will use reasonable efforts not to Digitize that Book, but, in any event, will comply with the request to Remove.

Google will implement a Rightsholder’s Removal direction within thirty (30) days after notice from the Registry. A Fully Participating Library will implement a Rightsholder’s Removal direction within ninety (90) days after notice from the Registry.

…

(iii) Limitations on Right to Remove. The right to Remove under
Section 3.5(a)(i) (Right to Remove) is limited to requests made within twentyseven (27) months from the Notice Commencement Date. Thereafter, requests will be honored only to the extent that the Books have not yet been Digitized as of the date the request is made; if the Books at issue have already been Digitized, the Rightsholder may request exclusion from particular Display Uses (under Section 3.5(b)(i) (Right to Exclude)) but not Removal (under Section 3.5(a)(i) (Right to Remove)).

I don’t get that.  If the Copyright holder owns the copyright, why should Google be able to make and keep a copy of the book without paying any required fee?

If Google is able to do this to use the copied work for their own purposes, why can’t I?  Or you?  Or anyone else?  Why does it appear as if Google gets to “step outside the law” and get treated differently just because of a settlement?

I dislike settlements with the Government

Settlements seem to give people more rights than they would otherwise get in a legal proceeding that was open and not “private.”  Many settlement agreements are “closed” and information about them is not disclosed…  How does this serve justice?

Allowing Google to keep a copy, digital or otherwise, of a copyrighted book, how are they subject to the Copyright Law?  Again, why is there a treatment for “big” (Google) rather than “small” (the rest of us)?

One law for them all…

Members of Congress fail to report income and simply pay the tax owed–sometimes without penalties or interest.  How does this happen?  “Big” vs. “small.”

The Courts should end this unjust enrichment by Google and the trampling of the Copyright holders rights under the law.  Agreeing to the settlement may mean that the writers (Copyright holders) lose the ability to control the copies of their works…

As to why libraries should have the ability to allow duplication of a protected work is beyond me…

What say you?

Alan Dershowitz has a posting at the Christian Science Monitor that discusses articles that appear in Newspapers (or anywhere else) that appear to make a claim about some action or conspiracy without citing any proof, evidence, or sources. Mr. Dershowitz seems amazed that Newspapers, even major ones, will run a story without any check on the “truth” stated in the article

The article claims that Jewish soldiers in Israel killed Palestinians in order to harvest their organs. The writer of the article, Donald Bostrom, has acknowledged that “he has no idea whether the accusations are true.” Yet a widely read Swedish newspaper was prepared to publish this undocumented and highly volatile accusation without requiring its author to present any credible evidence.

I agree. If you are making more than an opinion piece, you need to provide facts, sources, cites, and other documentation to “back up” your statement of what you claim is “truth.”

If you don’t, you appear alarmist or trying to yell “Fire!” or “Wolf!” where no real danger exists…

The posting further states

This false accusation is reminiscent of the medieval blood libels that falsely accused Jews of killing Christian children in order to use their blood for religious rituals. It is also reminiscent of the notorious Czarist forgery, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. One expects this sort of thing from Iranian or Syrian newspapers, but not from Swedish papers.

Say What?!

Now Mr. Dershowitz is making the same mistake he is complaining about…

You see, Mr. Dershowitz states

One expects this sort of thing from Iranian or Syrian newspapers, but not from Swedish papers.

Mr. Dershowitz’s statement implies that an Islamic paper or, at the very least, papers in those Islamic countries do not have “professional” reporting–reporting based on facts.

Hogwash. He is using a generalization to reach a conclusion. Let me call him out on this fallacy and his lack of critical thinking.

I understand this is an emotional topic–due to religion, persecution, and other issues, but flaming the fires helps nobody–not even those who are screaming (Mr. Dershowitz).

My Opinion

News media in the United States of America, Israel, Sweden, and Iran include both honest and factual reporters/papers and “attention-grabber” papers whose only purpose seems to focus on “selling papers” without much apparent focus on facts or fact-checking.

To say that we “expect” such lack of professionalism and alleged dishonesty from any particular country or sets of countries is disingenuous, dangerous, and dishonest.

Complaining about “A” when you do “A” is not a logical or reasonable way to debate the issues, and such activity fails to gain an educated and critically-thinking crowd even if it does attract those who hear “Fire!” or “Wolf!”

Perhaps all Mr. Dershowitz was looking for was to flame the fires…

I say that because Mr. Dershowitz states

As a Jew, but also as a strong defender of freedom of speech I am offended by Sweden’s craven complicity with evil.

Is “evil” the publishing of data that puts the armed forces of Israel in a bad light? Is “evil” the publishing of data with which you disagree? Is “evil” any “Muslim” or any believer of “Islam”? Is “evil” any “Islamic” or “Islamic-leaning” country or group?

Your failure to define exactly what is “evil” may be the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is, somehow, “evil.”

Mr. Dershowitz also states

Mr. Reinfeldt and Mr. Bildt, too, have freedom of speech, which they have exercised on many occasions. By choosing not to exercise it on this occasion – or even worse, by exercising it to criticize the Swedish ambassador to Israel for her condemnation of the article – they become facilitators of bigotry. They should be ashamed of themselves. Their country should be ashamed of them. And if their country is not ashamed of them, then every decent person in the world should be ashamed of Sweden.

Say What?!

Let me re-quote a portion of that

they become facilitators of bigotry

Bigotry is

The state of mind of being a bigot.

A bigot is

a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Now, I don’t know Mr. Dershowitz. I don’t know whether he treats all Muslims with hatred and intolerance, but his article seems to indicate he is intolerant of them and their opinions. Mr. Dershowitz appears to be devoted to his own opinions and prejudices

One expects this sort of thing from Iranian or Syrian newspapers…

While Mr. Dershowitz states he supports the Freedom of Speech, he states

They should be ashamed of themselves. Their country should be ashamed of them. And if their country is not ashamed of them, then every decent person in the world should be ashamed of Sweden.

Let me see….

a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices…

Yes, Mr. Dershowitz does seem, to me, to be intolerantly devoted to his oen opinion and prejudices regardless of how others may think.

I would support Mr. Dershowitz to simply state that he disagreed with the statements presented in the article and would hope that a professional newspaper and journalist would cite his or her facts in the article.

However, Mr. Dershowitz has gone far past that potential honest criticism. Rather, he is attacking, potentially, the legal standards of other countries or the freedoms available to journalists in other countries because they can write articles that offend him. By writing about this article, Mr. Dershowitz has brought attention to the article and to his argument–both of which, in my opinion, the world would have been better without.

In Summary

If you are complaining about “A” (regardless if “A” is an action or a non-action), you need to avoid doing “A” unless you want to look like you have double standards for “you and yours” and “everyone else.” People with double standards are not out for truth or fairness but are out for supporting their cause, their action, or their non-action.

Mr. Dershowitz closes with

Silence in the face of evil is not an option. As Edmund Burke reminded us many years ago: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” To that I may add, “or say nothing.”

I agree.

Mr. Dershowitz. “Evil” to me is fanning the flames that continue the belief that any one group is “evil,” disregarding the beliefs and legal rights of others, and debating issues while advocating a double standard. You simply can not attract those who think by failing to use reason in your argument. You do not look honest or interested in fair treatment when you generalize and label others in a manner while, at the same time, complaining about how “they” generalize and label you or “yours.”

Please use reason and remove the “emotion” from your argument. While we all have emotions, the emotion(s) you feel make your argument weaker.

We all want facts presented with statements. We all want unbiased reporting.

It appears to me that your post fails since you make assumptions about “others” and appear to have a double standard regarding who can say what about others without providing facts.

I mean, where are any facts about all of those newspapers in Syria?

If you ask me (and you aren’t), you should be ashamed for making an argument that that seems to show that you harbor at least a few generalizations about “others” when you complain about the “generalizations” “others” make about “Jews.”

Just present the facts… Leave the “finger-pointing” and generalizations at the door. Otherwise, you appear, to me, as bad as those you are complaining about.

I recall the message: “Change”

The word was everywhere: on posters, on television, spoken on the radio, on t-shirts, … You get the idea. The USA citizen voted on the premise of a change in the way politics had been conducted.

Now I ask a question…

Where is the change?

Don’t get me wrong. Democrats have different priorities from Republicans, but I don’t really think the USA citizen voted just to get a Republican out of office. Rather, I think we wanted to see something different from “politics as usual.”

So, I ask again: Where is the change?

A story from the AP talks about stimulus money being distributed to border crossings–an area that admittedly needs funding. However, funding in that program has some unexpected beneficiaries…

How it is supposed to work

The AP story states

In 2004, Congress ordered Homeland Security to create a list, updated annually, of the most important repairs at checkpoints nationwide.

The repairs at the top of the list were supposed to get money first in order to reduce those “most important repairs” that were documented and needed…

How it still works

But the Obama administration continued a Bush administration practice of considering other, more subjective factors when deciding which projects get money.

Before you say that “Bush did the same thing,” I want you to realize you are making a stupid and non-reasoned argument. That argument sounds like a child who argues, “He hit me first!”

Two wrongs do not make a right.

“Change” was supposed to mean we didn’t do “politics as usual” and avoided these situations where it appears as if favors are being passed around to benefit “party members” rather than fixing those “most important repairs.”

This is not “change.” This is “more of the same.”

I don’t see how you can argue any different. I’d love to hear your reasoning…

Money…

While repairs are needed in many places, we should be fixing those areas that need money and repairs first.

Let me quote from the article…

A border station in Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s home state of Arizona is getting $199 million, five times more than any other border station. The busy Nogales checkpoint has required repairs for years but was not rated among the neediest projects on the master list reviewed by the AP. Napolitano credited her lobbying as Arizona governor for getting the project near the front of the line for funding under the Bush administration. All it needed was money, which the stimulus provided.

How much campaigning could she have conducted under the stimulus as governor? Somebody want to go look that up?

More importantly, why was she lobbying for repairs to go anywhere except those areas that needed the repairs the most? Obviously, she was lobbying to provide her and her supporters with benefits–money.

Isn’t this idea of supporting you and “yours” over the needs of the nation that led to the outrage against lobbyists from both parties who get money spent on “pet projects” that benefit few people who are supporters of those lobbyists?

Isn’t this “more of the same?”

Isn’t that “the problem?”

But, there are more examples…

A checkpoint in Laredo, Texas, which serves more than 55,000 travelers and 4,200 trucks a day, is rated among the government’s highest priorities but was passed over for stimulus money.

This is where some of those “most important repairs” are located, and this project go nothing, zip, nada, …

The Westhope, N.D., checkpoint, which serves about 73 people a day and is among the lowest-priority projects, is set to get nearly $15 million for renovations.

Nice… That is $205,479.45 per person, on a daily basis, or $562.96 per person, on a per year basis, passing through the checkpoint. Now THAT is a toll…

And lastly…

The Whitetail project, which involves building a border station the size and cost of a Hollywood mansion, benefited from two key allies, Montana Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester. Both pressed Napolitano to finance projects in their state. Tester’s office boasted of that effort in an April news release, crediting Baucus and his seat at the head of the “powerful Senate Finance Committee.”

Nice…

If you want “Change,” …

If you want real change, you are going to have to get rid of all of those people in Washington that are responsible for these types of self-serving actions that weaken the United States of America.

“But wait,” you say. “Senators are supposed to represent their districts…”

Not quite…

Go read Article I of the Constitution. Here, I’ll provide you a link to the USA Government web-site so you won’t think I have created a “fake” Constitution…

Article I, Section VIII states

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

What I don’t see is “represent their state to the detriment of other states or of the United States of America.

A review of Congress is at MSNBC, and I’ll let you decide how “good” that review is since you will agree or disagree based on your party lines (you should really think critically rather than based on your “interests” or “feelings.” However, most people can’t get past that… It is hard to do…

However, I laughed at

After a few brief years of nonpartisanship in the 1780s, political parties emerged in Congress during the 1790s. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison led the Democratic-Republican Party, which advocated limited federal government, a minimal role for the government in the economy, and a foreign policy that allied the country with France. Alexander Hamilton led the opposing Federalist Party, which favored a strong federal government, a strong role for the Treasury Department in the economy, and a pro-British foreign policy. The Democratic-Republicans dominated Congress after Thomas Jefferson won the presidency in 1801. This party was the forerunner of today’s Democratic Party, although in the early 19th century it was sometimes called the Jeffersonian Republican Party, or simply the Republican Party.

While that may have been the case, the Democratic Party of today does not “advocate for limited federal government or for a minimal role for the government in the economy.” Quite the opposite is true today.

Studying history makes you open you eyes and say, “Reaaaallly?! Wow…” Then you turn the page and continue to be amazed…

Summary

Vote people who “use the system” out of the system. Otherwise, there is no incentive or future for “Change” …

Who knew?  I mean we all know people who are less interested in “sex” or “sexual activity.”  However, I did not know people actually considered themselves asexual.

Asexual means “devoid of sexuality.”

Sexuality means “ the quality or state of being sexual, the condition of having sex, sexual activity, or the expression of sexual receptivity or interest.”

I don’t think this is genetically determined–since it would tend to leads to a genetic dead-end.

A site called Asexual Visibility and Education Network (AVEN) talks about the “orientation” and provides information to those who are looking for information and connections to others with similar experiences.

A post on that site states

I do not believe that I was born asexual – I do not believe that our sexual orientation (or our romantic orientation, or most of our other preferences for that matter) are already set at birth. I am not a big fan of the “it’s all genetic” theories. I strongly believe that our environment, and the various things we experience as we grow up and later as we grow older, are what makes us who we are, and I think I can pinpoint some of the things that made me asexual, or at least some symptoms of that change taking place, back when I was about nine or ten years old. No, it was nothing awful – I was not sexually abused, I was not exposed to sexually explicit material, I was not brought up in fear of sex. But many little things happened and combined themselves in that way and I became asexual. I have never regretted it – I may not have been born asexual, but there are many elements of my personality that make this orientation especially appropriate and, indeed, probably the most suitable for me. Maybe, in fact, these elements did contribute to making me asexual. In truth, I do not care much about how it happened; I just think about it sometimes because I want to understand such things. But I am certainly glad it happened, and even more glad that I eventually found out about it; in fact, the only negative thing about my asexuality is that for so long I was not aware of it, and that if I had not become aware of it I would certainly have been very unhappy without ever understanding why or what I could do to change that.

Now I am confused

Don’t get me wrong. I think everyone is entitled to “feel” any way they want. If someone doesn’t want sex, I don’t care so long as they aren’t in a relationship with me. While “not wanting sex” is not “wrong,” “wanting sex” is not “wrong” either…

I just don’t get the statements made in that paragraph…

Let me summarize

strongly believe that our environment, and the various things we experience as we grow up and later as we grow older, are what makes us who we are, and I think I can pinpoint some of the things that made me asexual, or at least some symptoms of that change taking place, back when I was about nine or ten years old.

While “not wanting sex” does not affect anyone else, I wonder about the reasoning about the “condition” or “orientation.”

Here is why…

If the “orientation” is environmentally created (as stated by one with that “orientation), why not want to figure out what caused it and address those issues? Certainly, the “orientation” only affects the person having the orientation… However, a person who is beaten as a child may not want children. Should that person continue to assume children are “a problem” (if that is what they think due to “environmental conditions” or should they seek therapy to figure out why they feel as they do and to, perhaps, alter their perception so that they can be happier?

Certainly, I am not going to argue that “sex” makes you happier. However, sex does alter your body. Sex feels good. Sex is a unique way, in a monogamous relationship, to share and be intimate with your significant other in a way not shared with anyone else. That sharing and intimacy is, in my opinion, wonderful.

My Question

I guess not wanting to address the “orientation” is fine since it only affects you. However, I wonder why you want to stay with that “orientation” when you can identify environmental events that may have lead you down that path if there is an alternative.

While I don’t think there is a “right” or “wrong” way to experience or not experience sex, I do think people should realize why they are as they are and always try to alter experiences that might reduce your happiness and enjoyment of life. This philosophy supports being “gay,” “straight,” or asexual–if that is what gives you joy. If it doesn’t, why not look to see if you can alter your environment? In effect, take control back from those environmental events that affected you in the past.

If you want to stay “oriented” as you are, I think that is “right” for you. I will support you. However, if you stay “oriented” as you are simply because you think that is how you are, perhaps you are creating a glass ceiling that doesn’t need to be there…

Thoughts?

A new AP article by Calvin Woodward states there are many myths being adopted regarding the proposals regarding health care and government’s involvement in said health care.

Lets look at what Calvin talks about…

I. THE POLL: 45 percent said it’s likely the government will decide when to stop care for the elderly; 50 percent said it’s not likely.

THE FACTS: Nothing being debated in Washington would give the government such authority. Critics have twisted a provision in a House bill that would direct Medicare to pay for counseling sessions about end-of-life care, living wills, hospices and the like if a patient wants such consultations with a doctor. They have said, incorrectly, that the elderly would be required to have these sessions.

Did he mean to say “stop care for the elderly” or did he mean provide “end of life counseling?” You see, the “poll” says one thing yet the “facts” talk about another. This is how the conversation gets “confused.”

There is nothing wrong with end-of-life counseling. However, if you don’t want it, you should be able to “not get it.” It does help those who care for people in comas to allow those people to die, if that is their wish, rather than be “brought back” to a continued vegetative state.

That is not what I want, but I support the right for people to have a different opinion and outcome that I want for myself.

However, those asked might have taken the question to mean that some sort of rationing would occur to those over a certain age or having a certain condition. As I have stated, why would we think that every medical procedure would be conducted/done to save a life regardless of the cost? It simply can not happen in a financial analysis. There has to be limits on what is covered. If not, where is the money coming from if the federal plan will cover all of these things that private insurance is not covering?

Again, I would sign up for a federal plan if Congress proposed to give every USA citizen the same health care options they enjoy as a Federal Employee.

However, Congress is not suggesting the usa citizen gets the insurance that Congress enjoys. Rather, Congress is proposing health care options for USA citizens that they would not choose as an option if it was offered to them.

There is an inherent problem with that in my opinion…

II. Illegal Immigrants.

I haven’t seen a proposition to cover illegal immigrants. However, I do know they do get coverage at ERs. How is that?

III. Abortions

THE POLL: 50 percent expect taxpayer dollars will be used to pay for abortions; 37 percent don’t.

THE FACTS: The House version of legislation would allow coverage for abortion in the public plan. But the procedure would be paid for with dollars from beneficiary premiums, not from federal funds. Likewise, private plans in the new insurance exchange could opt to cover abortion, but no federal subsidies would be used to pay for the procedure.

Have abortions covered. Those that don’t like them should realize that the USA Government does not justify its actions based on religious beliefs but on actions that should benefit every USA citizen.

If it is legal, it should be provided. Of course, your mileage may vary…

Summary

We don’t know which proposal Calvin is discussing–this is another issue that confuses the debate. Are we talking about the Senate or House of Representatives proposal? They are about 400 pages different in length…

There are other proposals as well.

Obama needs to state which he is supporting and go support the bill.

Those talking about bills need to be specific about which bill they are discussing. Just realize that Senators talk about Senate proposals and Representatives talk about House Proposals.

My biggest problem with the article is that the author states

The judgment is harsh in a new poll that finds Americans worried about the government taking over health insurance, cutting off treatment to the elderly and giving coverage to illegal immigrants. Harsh, but not based on facts

The fact is that H.R. 3200 does, in fact, promote all new people covered be on the federal plan–in effect taking over health care.

As I stated in an earlier post

I. SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE,.

(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term `grandfathered health insurance coverage’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-

(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED- Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.

(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS- Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.

(3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES- The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific grandfathered health insurance coverage without changing the premium for all enrollees in the same risk group at the same rate, as specified by the Commissioner.

Go back and read that portion of the House proposal that is posted above and tell me how new employees can be covered under a private plan, say by Blue Cross Blue Shield, after the new law is passed…

Facts are lacking all around. You have to go read these proposals for yourself if you want to know. Even then, it may not be clear without pulling up other federal laws and regulations.

As I have said before

Accept, but question…

There was a law passed…

It affects you more than you know…

It requires certain participating doctors and their companies to maintain electronic medical records–to make everything more efficient you understand…

I am going to do this in two steps: (1)provide the language of a particular section of that law; and (2)describe, a day or two later, what my take on that language may mean to us all.

What I want you to do is to realize that Congress, and those that have been elected by us to be in Congress, may not read entire bills or may not be aware of all of the provisions even if they were read…

So, without further ado…

SEC. 13405. RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN DISCLOSURES AND SALES OF HEALTH INFORMATION; ACCOUNTING OF CERTAIN PROTECTED HEALTH INFORMATION DISCLOSURES; ACCESS TO CERTAIN INFORMATION IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT.

(a) Requested Restrictions on Certain Disclosures of Health Information- In the case that an individual requests under paragraph (a)(1)(i)(A) of section 164.522 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, that a covered entity restrict the disclosure of the protected health information of the individual, notwithstanding paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of such section, the covered entity must comply with the requested restriction if–

(1) except as otherwise required by law, the disclosure is to a health plan for purposes of carrying out payment or health care operations (and is not for purposes of carrying out treatment); and

(2) the protected health information pertains solely to a health care item or service for which the health care provider involved has been paid out of pocket in full.

(b) Disclosures Required to Be Limited to the Limited Data Set or the Minimum Necessary-

(1) IN GENERAL-

(A) IN GENERAL- Subject to subparagraph (B), a covered entity shall be treated as being in compliance with section 164.502(b)(1) of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, with respect to the use, disclosure, or request of protected health information described in such section, only if the covered entity limits such protected health information, to the extent practicable, to the limited data set (as defined in section 164.514(e)(2) of such title) or, if needed by such entity, to the minimum necessary to accomplish the intended purpose of such use, disclosure, or request, respectively.

(B) GUIDANCE- Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall issue guidance on what constitutes `minimum necessary’ for purposes of subpart E of part 164 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulation. In issuing such guidance the Secretary shall take into consideration the guidance under section 13424(c) and the information necessary to improve patient outcomes and to detect, prevent, and manage chronic disease.

(C) SUNSET- Subparagraph (A) shall not apply on and after the effective date on which the Secretary issues the guidance under subparagraph (B).

(2) DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM NECESSARY- For purposes of paragraph (1), in the case of the disclosure of protected health information, the covered entity or business associate disclosing such information shall determine what constitutes the minimum necessary to accomplish the intended purpose of such disclosure.

(3) APPLICATION OF EXCEPTIONS- The exceptions described in section 164.502(b)(2) of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, shall apply to the requirement under paragraph (1) as of the effective date described in section 13423 in the same manner that such exceptions apply to section 164.502(b)(1) of such title before such date.

(4) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as affecting the use, disclosure, or request of protected health information that has been de-identified.

(c) Accounting of Certain Protected Health Information Disclosures Required if Covered Entity Uses Electronic Health Record-

`(1) IN GENERAL- In applying section 164.528 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, in the case that a covered entity uses or maintains an electronic health record with respect to protected health information–

`(A) the exception under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of such section shall not apply to disclosures through an electronic health record made by such entity of such information; and

`(B) an individual shall have a right to receive an accounting of disclosures described in such paragraph of such information made by such covered entity during only the three years prior to the date on which the accounting is requested.

`(2) REGULATIONS- The Secretary shall promulgate regulations on what information shall be collected about each disclosure referred to in paragraph (1), not later than 6 months after the date on which the Secretary adopts standards on accounting for disclosure described in the section 3002(b)(2)(B)(iv) of the Public Health Service Act, as added by section 13101. Such regulations shall only require such information to be collected through an electronic health record in a manner that takes into account the interests of the individuals in learning the circumstances under which their protected health information is being disclosed and takes into account the administrative burden of accounting for such disclosures.

`(3) PROCESS- In response to an request from an individual for an accounting, a covered entity shall elect to provide either an–

`(A) accounting, as specified under paragraph (1), for disclosures of protected health information that are made by such covered entity and by a business associate acting on behalf of the covered entity; or

`(B) accounting, as specified under paragraph (1), for disclosures that are made by such covered entity and provide a list of all business associates acting on behalf of the covered entity, including contact information for such associates (such as mailing address, phone, and email address).

A business associate included on a list under subparagraph (B) shall provide an accounting of disclosures (as required under paragraph (1) for a covered entity) made by the business associate upon a request made by an individual directly to the business associate for such an accounting.

`(4) EFFECTIVE DATE-

`(A) CURRENT USERS OF ELECTRONIC RECORDS- In the case of a covered entity insofar as it acquired an electronic health record as of January 1, 2009, paragraph (1) shall apply to disclosures, with respect to protected health information, made by the covered entity from such a record on and after January 1, 2014.

`(B) OTHERS- In the case of a covered entity insofar as it acquires an electronic health record after January 1, 2009, paragraph (1) shall apply to disclosures, with respect to protected health information, made by the covered entity from such record on and after the later of the following:

`(i) January 1, 2011; or

`(ii) the date that it acquires an electronic health record.

`(C) LATER DATE- The Secretary may set an effective date that is later that the date specified under subparagraph (A) or (B) if the Secretary determines that such later date is necessary, but in no case may the date specified under–

`(i) subparagraph (A) be later than 2016; or

`(ii) subparagraph (B) be later than 2013.’

(d) Prohibition on Sale of Electronic Health Records or Protected Health Information-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (2), a covered entity or business associate shall not directly or indirectly receive remuneration in exchange for any protected health information of an individual unless the covered entity obtained from the individual, in accordance with section 164.508 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, a valid authorization that includes, in accordance with such section, a specification of whether the protected health information can be further exchanged for remuneration by the entity receiving protected health information of that individual.

(2) EXCEPTIONS- Paragraph (1) shall not apply in the following cases:

(A) The purpose of the exchange is for public health activities (as described in section 164.512(b) of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations).

(B) The purpose of the exchange is for research (as described in sections 164.501 and 164.512(i) of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations) and the price charged reflects the costs of preparation and transmittal of the data for such purpose.

(C) The purpose of the exchange is for the treatment of the individual, subject to any regulation that the Secretary may promulgate to prevent protected health information from inappropriate access, use, or disclosure.

(D) The purpose of the exchange is the health care operation specifically described in subparagraph (iv) of paragraph (6) of the definition of healthcare operations in section 164.501 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations.

(E) The purpose of the exchange is for remuneration that is provided by a covered entity to a business associate for activities involving the exchange of protected health information that the business associate undertakes on behalf of and at the specific request of the covered entity pursuant to a business associate agreement.

(F) The purpose of the exchange is to provide an individual with a copy of the individual’s protected health information pursuant to section 164.524 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations.

(G) The purpose of the exchange is otherwise determined by the Secretary in regulations to be similarly necessary and appropriate as the exceptions provided in subparagraphs (A) through (F).

(3) REGULATIONS- Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this title, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations to carry out this subsection. In promulgating such regulations, the Secretary–

(A) shall evaluate the impact of restricting the exception described in paragraph (2)(A) to require that the price charged for the purposes described in such paragraph reflects the costs of the preparation and transmittal of the data for such purpose, on research or public health activities, including those conducted by or for the use of the Food and Drug Administration; and

(B) may further restrict the exception described in paragraph (2)(A) to require that the price charged for the purposes described in such paragraph reflects the costs of the preparation and transmittal of the data for such purpose, if the Secretary finds that such further restriction will not impede such research or public health activities.

(4) EFFECTIVE DATE- Paragraph (1) shall apply to exchanges occurring on or after the date that is 6 months after the date of the promulgation of final regulations implementing this subsection.

(e) Access to Certain Information in Electronic Format- In applying section 164.524 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, in the case that a covered entity uses or maintains an electronic health record with respect to protected health information of an individual–

(1) the individual shall have a right to obtain from such covered entity a copy of such information in an electronic format and, if the individual chooses, to direct the covered entity to transmit such copy directly to an entity or person designated by the individual, provided that any such choice is clear, conspicuous, and specific; and

(2) notwithstanding paragraph (c)(4) of such section, any fee that the covered entity may impose for providing such individual with a copy of such information (or a summary or explanation of such information) if such copy (or summary or explanation) is in an electronic form shall not be greater than the entity’s labor costs in responding to the request for the copy (or summary or explanation).

After Reading, I have to say, “Hmmmmm.”