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.

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.

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?

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

The author states

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

Ah… No it isn’t.

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

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

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

There is ONE race.

The Human Race.

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

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

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

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

Think Critically rather than just assume…

What I think

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

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

Read “Public Opinion” by Walter Lippmann.

Think Critically.

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

Where do you draw the line?

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

What we need to do…

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

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

My Solution

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

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

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

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

What say you?

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

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

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

Comedic Insertion

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

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

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

Back to the Story

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to Nature

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

My Thoughts

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

Those aren’t the droids we are looking for…

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

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

Right…

Why does he argue this is important?

He states

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

Lack of Logic and Reason

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He states

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

BBC…

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

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

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

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

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

Doesn’t that make Bill right?

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

Here is why…

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

Notice the BBC allows you to ‘

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

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

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

Want to see him agree?

The BBC site states

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

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

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

In Closing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doesn’t that just seem fair?

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

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

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

Specifically, Think about the Children states…

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

Again, wow…

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

Simply amazing…

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.

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?

So, the left is supporting and highlighting Barney Frank.  The right is angry…

Are they all 5 years old?

She has a question.  However phrased, she is asking for an answer, and his response does not help answer the question or make him look concerned about how he needs to respond to a question at a town hall meeting.

Again, this is the place to voice support and opposition to the proposal.

I think everyone needs to stop back because they all sound like my kids arguing..

One:  ["Why are you supporting this Nazi policy?"]

Two:  ["On what planet do you spend most of your time?" ... "Trying to have a conversation with you would be like arguing with a dining room table."].

Which is 7 years old and which is 10?

Why not say something like

I don’t equate trying to provide health care to all USA citizens as being a NAZI tenant or policy.  I know many are opposed to the idea of government in the health care system, but there is a desire for improvements to the system.  Improvements being considered are governmental health care, altering private systems, and others.  While I am supporting __________, I hear you when you say you do not support the bill.  I respect your opinion and freedom to so choose, but the majority of my constituents support some modification to the health care system and government provided health care. I hope you agree that providing health care to all USA citizens is worth discussing even if you don’t agree with the proposed method.

Simply exchanging insults such as …

Why are you supporting this Nazi policy?

On what planet do you spend most of your time?” … “Trying to have a conversation with you would be like arguing with a dining room table.

makes everyone look bad in my humble opinion.

I can understand anyone disagreeing with either speaker. However, why does anyone support exactly what they said?

Let me clarify something…

My kids argue better than those two in the video…