I have to admit that I support people in their efforts if they have a legal right to do what they are proposing even if I would not do the same thing they are proposing to do…

For example, I would not place my mosque (or army command center) near the former site of the Twin Towers in NYC. Likewise, I would not place a new army command center 2 blocks from a missle strike that killed 25 men, women, and children who were at a wedding in Iraq–even if the Army had the legal right to do so…

Compassion and understanding is MORE than your legal obligation. There is no law requiring you to understand “others,” but I think a failure to try to understand is what leads to division.

So I support the mosque being built in NYC even though I think they could do better (for themselves and the community) by building it elsewhere…

Obama weighs in…

Even Obama chimed in and is quoted by USA Today as saying

“In this country we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion,” Obama told reporters in Florida. “I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country is about.”

Amen! I agree.

…

Time passes, and now I find myself perplexed…

A preacher in Florida, one , has decided to burn copies of the Quran. While I wouldn’t do what he is proposing, he has a legal, constitutional right to burn the books.

Obama is quoted by the NY Times as saying

“If he’s listening, I hope he understands that what he’s proposing to do is completely contrary to our values as Americans,” Obama said. “That this country has been built on the notion of freedom and religious tolerance.”

What I don’t get is how is his desire to burn the Quran different from the Mosque going up in NYC? Both parties have a legal right to do what they propose–even if most of us might not “comment on the wisdom of making the decision”…

“This country has been built on the notion of freedom and religious tolerance.”

The notion of freedom means, I think, that we have the right to act even if that action is opposed by many (whether it is building a mosque or buring the quran or other book/bible). The notion of religious tolerance is that we must be tolerant of people’s religion even if we aren’t a follower or whether or not one thinks the religion is peaceful, aggresive, hateful, etc…

If the KKK and pro-Nazi parties have the right to chant, march, and speak…
If the Muslims have the right to build near the towers…
If the USA really is about the notion of freedom and tolerance…

Shouldn’t we support this man’s right to burn whatever book he wants?

Remember, I don’t think the burning is wise, but he has a legal right.

Now the FBI visits the Florida Minister…

Yahoo reports the FBI is visiting the minister… Wow… I wonder if the FBI visited the Imam who wants to rebuild near Ground Zero…

Our founding fathers did NOT make the USA a full-fledged democracy because they were wise and did NOT want the simple majority to override the wishes of those in the minority… Why do some politicians, on both sides of the isle, want to eliminate the rights of those with which they disagree?

I just don’t understand the lack of understanding and tolerance…

Do you?

What I don’t get…but I’m trying…

Why do Muslims react with violence when non-muslims do what they, the Muslims, would not do? How does that show anyone that Islam is tolerant and peaceful?

Why is the Quran so “protected?” Has a Muslim not burned the USA flag or a “non-muslim” bible? Do a Google/Yahoo/Bing search and see what you find…

See here, here, and here.

Bibles burned in Islmic countries, and chritians PROTEST… I see no threats of violence, no death threats, no hatred. I see tolerance and protest from christians.

Hmm… Which religion seems to always teach non-violence?

I have no problem with Islam IF it is non-violent, if it is tolerant of those who are not muslim, and so long as Islam teaches that those of non-Islamic faith are to be treated exactly the same as those of islamic faith. If not, there is a double standard I find unacceptable.

Summary

I am all for protecting the rights of those NOT in the majority-this is the principle of our REPUBLIC. However, protecting the rights of those in the minority does not mean not protecting the rights of anyone else (majority or minority) whose actions might “offend” someone else…

What say you?

Security Alerts…

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

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

Take from this? Take the train…

Terrorists…

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

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

Stuff

We may make mistakes more than once…

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

Hopefully every USA citizen has read these two documents…

Declaration of Independence — More information available here.

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

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

Criminal laws discriminate against criminals…

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

If not, read here…

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

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

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

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

Please… Do everyone a favor. Read the Law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3rd - Protection from quartering of troops.

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

4th - Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

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

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

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

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

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

7th - Civil trial by jury.

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

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

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

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

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

10th - Powers of States and people.

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

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

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

Yahoo has a news link that states:

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

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

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

Constitutional Victory

Nobody likes like gun violence. Nobody.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See here…

BP’s 2009 Annual Summary

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

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

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

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

Doesn’t that seem, somehow, wrong?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That sounds like my two kids arguing…

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

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

Critical thinking. Why is it that nobody tries anymore?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Think Critically.

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

In Closing

Everyone has an opinion…

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

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

What say you?

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

The article states

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

Critical Thinking?

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

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

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

Logic

No dumping = clean water and clean uplands.

Sticks and Stones…

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

The article states Mr. Oberstar said

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

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

My Thoughts. Yes, I have a few…

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

What say you?

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

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

Right…

Why does he argue this is important?

He states

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

Lack of Logic and Reason

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He states

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

BBC…

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

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

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

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

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

Doesn’t that make Bill right?

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

Here is why…

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

Notice the BBC allows you to ‘

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

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

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

Want to see him agree?

The BBC site states

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

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

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

In Closing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doesn’t that just seem fair?

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

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

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

Specifically, Think about the Children states…

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

Again, wow…

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

Simply amazing…

A news story by Reuters states

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

The post continues to state

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

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

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

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

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

Evolution fits in how?

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

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

Think critically, please..

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

Police Commissioner Frederick H. Bealefeld III stated

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

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

Many seem to come from police sales…

Funny that…

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

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

Here is my issue…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What say you?

I have blogged about this before, and I stand by what I have written.

There have been times in the past where there was no ice at the poles.

Now, scientists think we could have a summer with no ice in the Arctic as early as 2030–just 20 years away!

I am not going to say it–because I already have…

The article states

An increasing number of experts feel the North Pole will be ice free in summer by 2030 at the latest, for the first time in a million years.

Please learn about the natural warming and cooling trends on this planet.  Do some research rather than just believe what people say–even it if appears everyone else is saying it…

Remember, “everyone” used to think the earth was flat and that the earth was at the center of the solar system.  How do you know what you “know?”  Is it because you accept what others say or because you thought critically about facts/data and have come to a conclusion?

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

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

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

A story carried by the Associated Press states

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

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

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

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

Back to the Issue…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’ll tell you what I think…

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

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

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

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

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

Sort of like Polanski…

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

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

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

Examples

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

The list goes on.

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

Where is the empathy?

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

Do you think getting mad is solving any issues?

Actually, practice shows it does…

Here is the rub.

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

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

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

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

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

cough

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

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

Where is critical thought?

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

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

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

Summary

Need proof?

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

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

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

Critical thinking and Empathy - the only way to enlightenment.

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

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

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

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

The Associated Press states

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

She further states, get ready for it, …

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where is Steven Seagal when you need him?

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

Obama spoke at the UN and stated

“We understand the gravity of the climate threat. We are determined to act,” Obama said. “And we will meet our responsibility to future generations.”

The post at Yahoo states

Environmental experts warn of catastrophic changes, from rising sea levels to more drought, if industrial and developing nations cannot collectively address a warming planet.

The issue, of course, is that the Earth has had many historic warming cycles where the temperatures were much warmer than they are now–all without human intervention.

To say that we can stop the warming by reducing our emissions might be “missing the point.” Don’t you think?

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?