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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3rd - Protection from quartering of troops.

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

4th - Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

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

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

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

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

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

7th - Civil trial by jury.

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

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

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

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

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

10th - Powers of States and people.

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

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

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

Yahoo has a news link that states:

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

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

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

Constitutional Victory

Nobody likes like gun violence. Nobody.

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

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

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

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

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

Soccer is ON!

Of course, it has been on for a while, and I haven’t played competitively for some time… Something like 20 years ago, I was playing semi-pro ball in Puerto Rico. I quit because semi-pro and pro soccer isn’t, imho, about the better soccer team or the better soccer player, it is like the american judicial system–it is what can you get away with…

Let me give you some examples…

Chile v. Switzerland on June 21, 2010

In this game, there were many, many fouls-19 cards were issued? Can that be right?

There was a yellow card given to a Chilean player for hitting a Swiss player in the face-except he didn’t touch the Swiss player. Video clearly shows no touch occurred…

There was a yellow card given to a Chilean player for faking a foul as he was going for a goal shot. He faked a foul to try and get a penalty kick instead of simply recovering and trying to get the goal like a good soccer player…

The only goal that counted shouldn’t have because there was a player off-sides on the break-away. Video replay clearly shows the off-sides.

There was a yellow card given to a Swiss player for holding a Chilean player who was down by the Swiss goal. After being given the card, the Swiss player got up and yelled, his body clenched–all when video clearly shows he was fouling the Chilean player. Did the Swiss player have amnesia? Give me a break…

What is my problem with all this?

FIFA looks stupid, and the players and teams look worse.

Why?

You have no review of plays. There is no penalty for lying. There is only an encouragement to lie, cheat, and hit…

This atmosphere, created by FIFA, coaches, and players, leads to this…

Poor sportsmanship, Lack of Soccer skills

All of this lack of honesty and sportsmanship lead to poor soccer. I think this all started when Pele was playing… Why? Most players didn’t have the skill to stop Pele so they relied on fouls, intentional fouls at that…

The Solution?

FIFA needs to step up the game and stop worrying about making so much money. Soccer is suffering. Players today think elbowing the defender in the stomach/ribs is okay and acceptable. When the defender replies by pulling the attacker’s hair, suddenly everyone is up in arms?

Give me a break. If you are going to foul and suspend Lambert for that action, you should also foul and suspend the other party…

Doing otherwise is hypocritical. If you don’t think so, you need to go take a class in reason and practice critical thinking…

My Message to FIFA, Players, and, especially, Coaches

Call the fouls or change your damn rules. FIFA, refs, and players all look stupid and lacking in reason when they try to justify the game as it is currently played.

There is NO reasoning for the game to be reduced to the fake fouls, the purple prose, the lack of pure soccer skills and enjoyment of the game.

My comment to those who foul on purpose, to those who fake fouls, to those who support this lack of sportsmanship…

If you can’t compete without it, get off the field.

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

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

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

See here…

BP’s 2009 Annual Summary

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

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

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

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

Doesn’t that seem, somehow, wrong?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That sounds like my two kids arguing…

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

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

Critical thinking. Why is it that nobody tries anymore?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Think Critically.

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

In Closing

Everyone has an opinion…

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

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

What say you?

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?

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

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

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

Specifically, Think about the Children states…

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

Again, wow…

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

Simply amazing…

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

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

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

According to MacWorld

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

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

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

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

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

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

About Lawyers…

I saw a post on MacWorld by one NeoSurge…

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

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

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

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

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

Not surprising, I disagree…

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

Lets start with Logic… Or the lack of logic…

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

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

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

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

Why the money-chasing lawyers care…

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

What say you?

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

Police Commissioner Frederick H. Bealefeld III stated

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

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

Many seem to come from police sales…

Funny that…

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?

People make mistakes. We all do. Yet, many try to deny making any…

Famous people

McCain said we would not be pulling out of the Middle East any time soon, and the Democrats, including Obama, said that a quick pullout would happen-going as far as to set a deadline (that has past).

We are still in the Middle East…

Why not simply say, “I was wrong. McCain had enough experience to know something that I, at that time, could not foresee.”

How would saying that or admitting to being ‘wrong’ or mis-informed weaken Mr. Obama?

I don’t get it…

Perfect…?

There is no ‘perfect’ person on this planet (or off-world for that matter) that is always right. Too many things are subjective or fluid to be classified as ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ Even on factual issues, the ‘brightest’ person is not always right.

Isn’t that okay?

The public expects politicians and others to be ‘perfect’ and are, lo and behold, surprised when people are not perfect. From actors to politicians–people are … people.

They are no better or worse than you or me. They may think they are–buying into their own marketing, but they put their pants on one let at a time unless they either jump into their pants or slip into them while down on the bed, the floor, the chair, …

You think you ‘know’ an actor? Guess again. You know the persona they market…

The CEO of a major corporation sits down at the table in the cafeteria with all those other ‘higher-ups,’ like the CFO, COO, etc., and they eat and talk about the same stuff you do at your table. Sure, they might occasionally talk about business, but everyone’s business is slightly different. They talk about dinners, parties, cars, … While the party, house, car, etc. might be different, they have feelings that are quite similar to yours.

Okay, we are all people…

People make mistakes. Size and scope may be different, but a mistake is not who you are…

Realize that a mistake is simply a mistake. Even if others make assumptions about you based on your mistakes, you are not defined by your mistakes. You might still need to work on not making the same mistake or you might need to fix the situation. If you make a mistake in a business, fix it if you can–this could be leaving the company, this could be solving a problem with supplies, this could be just about any issue. If you get angry when you shouldn’t have been upset, calm down and try hard to not get angry the next time.

Mistakes happened in the past

You past is … your past. You can’t change it. You shouldn’t define yourself, what you are now or in the future, by what has gone on in the past.

Future. What is to be. What hasn’t happened yet. You can do something different, you can act different, you can become something different, and you can change–fix those mistakes.

The only thing stopping you is … you.

Gogs

Gogs once said that a door might not open if you bang your head on the door. Gogs said you can keep banging your head against the door, but all you are going to get is a headache. Don’t expect the door to open this time when what you have been doing hasn’t changed. Try something different… Perhaps the lock, the knob, another door…

Summary

So try. What could it hurt?

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

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

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

A story carried by the Associated Press states

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

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

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

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

Back to the Issue…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’ll tell you what I think…

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

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

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

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

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

Sort of like Polanski…

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

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

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

Examples

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

The list goes on.

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

Where is the empathy?

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

Do you think getting mad is solving any issues?

Actually, practice shows it does…

Here is the rub.

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

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

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

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

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

cough

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

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

Where is critical thought?

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

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

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

Summary

Need proof?

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

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

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

Critical thinking and Empathy - the only way to enlightenment.

Parents in Long Island are saying that it was scary…

Vincent Pizzonia, 17, is alleged to have been building explosives in the basement of his family’s house in Long Island, Suffolk County.

The New York Post reports

Det. Lt. Jim Rooney said Pizzonia had “pictures that showed the Columbine incident on the back of the bedroom door.”

I am not sure how that helps the investigation, but I see he got his name in the paper…

What is “scary” is that parents fear kids like this rather than their kids that create the situations that create kids like this…

I’d like to get a list of kids at the school who alienated Vincent, who picked on Vincent, and who are those who have some blame in the situation.

While Vincent appears to have acted in a way that was destructive (to himself and others), those who treat others should know that their treatment of others can affect them and others. Of course, kids act this way just because it affects others and makes them, those who are critical of others, “feel” powerful–when, in reality, it shows they are weaker and more insecure than those they criticize.

It is called bullying, and you should be scared that other parents are ineffective at stopping their kids from becoming bullies. You never know, it could be your kid who is targeted next.

You see, those kids who make fun of that “loner,” are usually the popular kids who try and look “cool” and “critical” of others thinking, quite wrongly, that their criticism of others makes them look better.

Remember…

Those who criticize say something about themselves rather than those they speak about.

If they wanted to do something constructive or to show that they were “better,” they would have solved the problem.

I remember sitting down with my mom to watch the series when it first aired.  It was a big deal at our house.

During the commercials, we would talk and discuss the movie and other issues.

I remember seeing Kunta Kinte, played by Levar Burton (a great actor I think), being captured by slavers, also documented in the book and on web-sites dedicated to the book.

I remember thinking it odd that Africans were capturing Kunta and then selling him to the white slavers.

I remember being confused about this as a young child.  I heard my mother’s explanation, but I found it hard to understand.

Slavery has a world-wide history

I think it was Denmark that was the first nation to outlaw slavery

n 1792, Denmark decided that, on moral grounds, it would no longer permit the transportation of slaves from its colonies. This decision was the first of its kind, and Denmark to this day prides itself on being the first European nation to stop dealing in human beings. However, the decision was ambiguous. Though the buying and transporting of slave was made illegal in 1792, a ten-year grace period was allowed, so slave traders could continue in the business until 1802. In addition, no provision outlawed the ownership of slaves on the Danish sugar plantations of the West Indies. As a mater of fact, the 1792 decision prompted the slave traders to export large numbers of African women to the West Indies with the intention of giving the slave owner the change to breed his slaves, thus propitiating his labour force for the generations to come.

The people least happy about the 1792 decision were the Africans chiefs themselves, who had relied on slavery for centuries. When in 1802 Denmark ceased to allow the trade and prevented Portuguese trader from dealing with chieftains around Christiansborg, the Keta tribe – one of the largest in the area – besieged Christiansborg and threatened to destroy the fort. Eventually a Danish warship arrived and bombarded the natives.

Often overlooked in school teachings, there were many people profiting from the slave trade, and there were many opposing the slave trade. These “many people,” on both sides, were of all colors and shades in between.

What we take from this is that people treat others as they would not be treated–for profit or due to their “opinion” as to what is “right.”

Without going into the discussion, let me say that slavery is wrong. Treating others as you would not be treated is wrong.

Why is his so hard to understand?

Because some people focus on teaching children that you have to look out for “number one” because nobody else will. The message some kids get is, “You have to ‘lie, cheat, and steal’ to get ahead.” While not taught using the quoted language, some parents often act in a way that teaches these principals to their children.

Be Fair
We have all heard “life is not fair.”

I’m tired of hearing that, and I hope everyone will do their part to make life fair. Those who act fairly, likely, will be taken advantage of by those whose motto is “Look out for number one.” However, people will see how those people act. People are defined by their actions.

What is the alternative if we don’t start acting better?

Our prophesy of “look out for number one” will become the truism, and any sense of fairness will not be expected.

Think we are far from that day?

Look at the media, politicians, and others spinning data. Want to rethink the idea that we are far from that day?

I think it was yesterday, but I hope I am wrong.

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?

“Global Warming” is a … hot … topic. Everyone seems to have an opinion…

1. The Earth is HOT, and we have destroyed so much!
2. The Earth is warming up, and we are causing it.
3. The Earth is warming, but the warming is caused by natural events even if humans may be affecting the rate of change.
4. The Earth naturally, over its history, has had several warming and cooling cycles. We are in a period of warming where man may be affecting the rate at which the Earth is observing rising temperatures.
5. You are all nuts!

What is your perception?

I ask this because we all “know” what is the truth.

Right?

Maybe not…

The PALEOMAP Project is a project whose goal is “to illustrate the plate tectonic development of the ocean basins and continents, as well as the changing distribution of land and sea during the past 1100 million years.” So yes, they do discuss plate tectonics and the movement of the continents. I wonder if after there is, in about 250 million years, a “super continent,” will the remaining land collapse in on itself?

Go read their site for more information. Knowledge is a wonderful thing…

The site also has some information on global temperatures. The site has a diagram I would like to share.

Say What?!

Look at those temperatures and the “Cycle” we are in today. See where temperatures may be heading, if history is any indication… 25 Degrees Centigrade! For those of us in the USA, that equals 77 degrees Fahrenheit. Here is a conversion chart for those who don’t want to do math.

You are saying, “That is not hot!”

Well, that is average world temperatures. Note that the chart says that the current world average temperature is about 15 Degrees Centigrade, or 59 Degrees Fahrenheit.

Our average temperatures might be 10 Degrees Centigrade warmer!

Our average temperatures might be 18 Degrees Fahrenheit warmer!

Calm…

We need to be aware that the tectonic plates will collide at some point, shifting our continents and our shorelines. At the same time, the impact is expected to happen more than 250 million years from now, so we don’t have to panic yet…

However, global average temperatures will warm much sooner than the continents will move. While I am not moving away from the coast just yet, why is it we are not planning for the, what I consider to be, obvious increases in temperatures and subsequent sea level rise?

I guess this is like Social Security-”Lets not create a panic. We can deal with it later…”

Yes, and the aftermath will be much worse than the financial meltdown occurring between 2007 and 2010.

Don’t think so? Just wait…

What is “rich” to you? Is “rich” being able to do anything? Are we talking $15 Million or are we talking $2 Million?

What “rich” means to me is being able to not worry about paying for the essentials such as house payment, utility payment, food, gasoline, phone, and, yes, cable and internet.

Being able to “wine and dine” in Paris is not on my list of needed items, and I’d be happy to be “rich” by my definition even if such was severely lacking in your definition.

Why is this being talked about?

News articles have discussed how Ted Kennedy was influenced by his “rich” heritage, and I don’t mean to imply they were talking about his wonderful family besides talking about their net worth.

Can money influence you?

Of course!

Having no money can influence you just as much as having money…

Those without often feel a need to hold onto the money in case it, somehow, could end up “gone.” Likewise, those who grew up without funds may feel a need to make sure everyone else isn’t given funds–they made it, you should too.

People with funds often are not concerned about rent/mortgage payments or other payments needed to live (richly or not). This lack of concern is a lack of stress, and nobody likes stress. Nobody wants to be worried about how they will pay the next house payment or Visa bill…

So don’t criticize those who are not rich–they likely are working or just laid off. I don’t consider those who are not working or wanting to work…

At the same time, don’t criticize the “rich” because you do wish you were one of them…

Life is hard all around. There is plenty to make a person want to give up. I do think those “without” may have more stress (financial) than those “with,” but I don’t know that happiness is lacking in either group.

Some people just go looking for happiness a little harder than others even in hard situations.

So, go find your smile. You might not be able to change your financial status, but you can certainly make yourself happy and smile in light of any problems you are facing.