Yes my friends…

A beer seems appropriate today. Not because Obama, Biden, Gates, and Crowley sat down to share one but because I like beer.

I also like beer commercials…

Do you have a favorite one?

Here is mine (for the moment):

So… Enjoy your Friday night and ensuing weekend.

Stay thirsty my friends…

Patent law provides a way for an inventor to protect the right to what was invented so that the inventor can “reap the rewards” and “recover the costs” of the invention.

The USA Patent Office states

A patent for an invention is the grant of a property right to the inventor, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Generally, the term of a new patent is 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, in special cases, from the date an earlier related application was filed, subject to the payment of maintenance fees. U.S. patent grants are effective only within the United States, U.S. territories, and U.S. possessions. Under certain circumstances, patent term extensions or adjustments may be available.

The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute and of the grant itself, “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” the invention in the United States or “importing” the invention into the United States. What is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the invention. Once a patent is issued, the patentee must enforce the patent without aid of the USPTO.

There are three types of patents:

1) Utility patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof;

2) Design patents may be granted to anyone who invents a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture; and

3) Plant patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant.

The same office states that some things can not be patented

In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined in the patent law, which provides that an invention cannot be patented if: “(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent,” or “(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country more than one year prior to the application for patent in the United States . . .”

If the invention has been described in a printed publication anywhere in the world, or if it was known or used by others in this country before the date that the applicant made his/her invention, a patent cannot be obtained. If the invention has been described in a printed publication anywhere, or has been in public use or on sale in this country more than one year before the date on which an application for patent is filed in this country, a patent cannot be obtained. In this connection it is immaterial when the invention was made, or whether the printed publication or public use was by the inventor himself/herself or by someone else. If the inventor describes the invention in a printed publication or uses the invention publicly, or places it on sale, he/she must apply for a patent before one year has gone by, otherwise any right to a patent will be lost. The inventor must file on the date of public use or disclosure, however, in order to preserve patent rights in many foreign countries.

Even if the subject matter sought to be patented is not exactly shown by the prior art, and involves one or more differences over the most nearly similar thing already known, a patent may still be refused if the differences would be obvious. The subject matter sought to be patented must be sufficiently different from what has been used or described before that it may be said to be nonobvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention. For example, the substitution of one color for another, or changes in size, are ordinarily not patentable.

What I love about this process…

A double-sided toothbrush was determined to NOT be prior art or obvious and was given a patent because the patent application, itself, stated

While there exist prior art toothbrushes which focus on brushing the teeth and gums, there has yet to be provided a toothbrush which includes a dual purpose of comfortably and effectively enabling brushing one’s teeth and gums and also the remaining mouth tissue. The present invention achieves this.

Yes, that makes sense…

Now you see the “why” behind the move for patent reform…

Lots of sites have “talked” about how a for-profit system is a disaster…

I have someone who has submitted to me information and enough proof to justify me posting this…

Mr. Happy has private health insurance through Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina.  He has a chronic disease (diabetes), has had a son born three months premature, and has had his wife undergo surgery.  He has been to the emergency room over 12 times in the past 7 years, and he is…..

Happy with his health care coverage.

He is not broke or in bankruptcy.  Perhaps it is BCBS’s plan that he participates in is so much better than those plans everyone else participates in, but should we, the people, demand that he get the same care we do–perhaps his employer is willing to accept those costs.

You want my suggestion?

Ask your congress person why they don’t propose to cover every USA citizen with the same health plan offered to USA federal employees–you know, the health care options the congress members get to choose to cover their health care needs.

Congress could just as easily pass a new law giving every USA citizen the same health care they enjoy…

Remember, Congress will keep their current plan and not be required to participate in the new proposed health care system.

Why don’t they provide everyone with what they provide themselves? Oh, you don’t know what options they have? See the governments web-site…

I dare you to call and ask…

Okay… We have all read the story.

Joseph Cohen, a taxi driver for 39 years, picked up the family at Logan International Airport on Sunday, drove them to their home in the city’s Mattapan neighborhood, and helped them unload their luggage.

“They paid me, thank you very much, everything was nice, and I left,” he said.

Minutes later, Cohen got a call from the cab pool at the airport. State police … were looking for him.

He was told the family left a child in his cab.

“I said, ‘What?’ So I looked in the back and I see the baby sleeping. I said, ‘What should I do?’ So you know, I take the baby (back) to the family,” he said. “The father came out. He was very happy.”

He even gave him a $50 tip.

Who is responsible

That is the wrong question…

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

1. The parents should have made sure they had their kids; and
2. The cab driver should have gotten up and checked the back of the cab to make sure the passengers had not left anything behind, as required by law.

Everyone clear?

So, the cab driver is NOT being charged with kidnapping–taking the child without authorization. Rather, the cab driver is being charged with failure to meet the requirements of a law that require any driver to go check the back of the cab to make sure the passenger(s) did not leave anything behind after leaving the cab.

So, own up to being responsible. Don’t cloud the issue with red-herrings…

Own up to your mistakes. You will be a better person, and others will think better of you. Remember, we are not defined by our worst mistake. Imagine if your worst mistake was widely known by the general public…

How you deal with the situation after making the mistake is what will define you…

Of course, that is my two-cent piece…

Words to live by… When an United States Corporation does work/business in France, the corporation must abide by French law. This is accepted international law…

Yet, when a sovereign country removes their President, other countries feel a need to tell the country in question that they need to re-insteate their President because

We don’t recognize Roberto Micheletti as the president of Honduras, we recognize Manuel Zelaya, and so in keeping with that policy of non-recognition, we have decided to revoke official diplomatic visas, or A visas, of four individuals who are members of that regime,” State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said in Washington.

Imagine how much laughter there would be if Hugo Chavez said

We don’t recognize Barack Obama as the president of the United States, we recognize John McCain, and so in keeping with that policy of non-recognition, we have decided to revoke official diplomatic visas, or A visas, of four individuals who are members of that regime.

Mr. Obama would be flabbergast. However, this is what President Obama, most of Europe, and many others are doing. You see,

The de facto Honduran government, backed by the Supreme Court and Congress, has so far not bent to international condemnation of the coup and it insists that Zelaya cannot come back and serve the remaining six months in office.

Why do we (whoever “we” might be) think that we can dictate the law in another country? Go read their constitution, go read their newspapers, go read their blogs before you take a stance on the issue.

It isn’t the people that are being denied–it is Zelaya. Just as the President of the United States is not elected by a majority of the voters (it was designed that way–go read Federalist Paper #10). The Honduran government and people can decide to have a constitution that dictates how the law applies in Honduras.

How such misunderstandings keeps getting perpetuated by the media and the government is staggering and show a complete lack of understanding of what is actually going on in Honduras…

Don’t get me wrong… Honduras didn’t do everything right either… As stated in the Miami Herald,

”We know there was a crime there,” said Inestroza, the top legal advisor for the Honduran armed forces. “In the moment that we took him out of the country, in the way that he was taken out, there is a crime. Because of the circumstances of the moment this crime occurred, there is going to be a justification and cause for acquittal that will protect us.”

Zelaya was ousted in a predawn raid at his house Sunday after he vowed to defy a court order that ruled a nonbinding referendum to be held that day illegal. The leftist wealthy rancher had clashed with the attorney general, the Supreme Court, Congress and the military he commanded.

But instead of being taken to court to stand trial for abuse of power and treason, the military swept him out of bed at gunpoint and forced him into exile.

Sort of like certain votes not being counted…

I am ashamed that our Government is not providing all of the information regarding what is going on in Honduras. They need to educate themselves about what they are doing. This is JUST LIKE “W” saying I don’t care what the law of … is, we are going to impose our law on them…

Obama might not be using military force, but he is forcing his ideals on Honduras in contradiction to Honduran law…

Think critically people.

If I were the Honduran President, I would allow him back into Honduras, arrest him, and let him stand trial as he is supposed to be treated under the law of Honduras.

However, this fact does not explain why the USA government, and others, does not admit that Zelaya has broken Honduran law and should have been arrested and tried.

This stinks.

I see people “offended” because others have a difference of opinion. I hear people yell when they feel they were “offended.” Some people get the “how dare you” reaction when something “offends” them.

Why is everyone so offended because others have a difference of opinion?

I think many people (parents) and teachers tell kids they should worry about what others people think. This teaches children to worry about what other people say–as if, somehow, it defines us.

People feel they have to deny the “accusation” or “become” what they are accused of being–stupid, uneducated, etc….

We are all ignorant about (insert what you know nothing about here). You can fill books with what I don’t know, and I bet you can fill books with what you don’t know.

The first person that says they know it all is already proved to be a liar. Even people with a photographic memory haven’t read everything…

Many who read/hear don’t understand everything they read even if they think they understand it perfectly…

The New Revised Standard Version (did you know there were that many different versions?) of the Bible, in Corinthians 1:13:11 states

When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways.

I will now generalize… Get ready for it…

Society today appears to be supporting the ability to hold on to childish things.

Don’t believe me? Look at the behavior of:

1. The Real World;
2. Housewives of (fill in area here);
3. Lance Armstrong and Alberto Condandor;
4. Politicians; and
5. …

No need to go on is there?

Lets see the quote from the bible again…

When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways.

Of course, you are welcome to keep acting like a child… However, you should not be surprised when people treat you like a child if you continue to act like a child and not realize adults should be able to reason and think critically instead of “just react.”

Of course, that is just my $0.02…

I accept that people will have opinions that differ from mine, and I welcome a difference of opinion…

You knew there was a “but” in there didn’t you?

I would prefer if a person reaches an opinion through the use of critical thinking.

The Christian Science Monitor has an article called “A trigger lock for the gun lobby.” It makes for a slightly amusing reading…

Don’t get me wrong, the article does have great logical points. They state that armed students on campus may be difficult to differentiate from the perpetrators/criminals. How will Law Enforcement Officers tell the difference if they arrive on the scene and there are 6 people with guns? Should we expect the LEO to look around and see where all 6 students are located in order to determine, if it is even possible, which is the criminal?

Of course, we can agree how people should react when the LEO arrives–cease and desist perhaps?

However, the editorial board adopts some logical fallacies as well.

Neither is it very smart to mix armed students with alcohol, which flows freely on many college campuses. The same logic applies to conceal-and-carry in taverns. Why is it that even two states – Tennessee and Arizona – approved this lethal cocktail of weapons and drinking establishments?

Can you see the problem with this paragraph?

First, the editorial board is making an immediate plea for your emotional support by saying it is not very smart…

Second, the statements made are judgmental and prejudiced because they are misleading–people who carry concealed (even in Tennessee) are not allowed to carry while drinking. You see, those states pass laws that state it is illegal to drink alcohol while carrying your firearm. Implying otherwise is disingenuous.

We allow drive-through stores that sell alcohol (sometimes only sell alcoholic beverages). We allow people to drive to restaurants to drink. We don’t prevent taverns from selling alcohol because someone has to drive back home… We make no assumption that people will drink and drive even after they have had a drink. Yet, the editorial board is willing to say that people who carry guns will, somehow, run afoul of the law, drink, and get into “a lethal cocktail” of trouble…

Is the editorial board making a “logical” jump that says because it is legal to carry but not drink, those who are carrying will just drink anyway? Of course, criminals who do not follow the law will be carrying their firearms concealed everywhere, regardless of what might be allowed by law. It appears as if the editorial board suggests that the firearm-carrying public will pick and choose the parts of the law they like and ignore the parts they do not like… This is assuming that everyone that wants to carry a firearm is already a criminal who is not following the law.

Remember, a person who is carrying a firearm, concealed or open, may be following the law and exercising their legal rights.

Sure, the editorial board doesn’t say these firearm owners will drink, but, fi the assumption isn’t made, what is the concern since firearms and alcohol will not be mixing? So there is an implication made when the editorial board wonders how someone could approve ” lethal cocktail of weapons and drinking establishments”-again appealing to our emotional side using “purple prose” like “lethal cocktail.”

I think this use of language is like a nice piece of ass–it is all about grabbing your attention and making you not see what is really important–your legal rights. Kind of like assuming a person with a nice piece of ass (male or female, don’t make that gender assumption…) is going to be nice, worthwhile, or ethical just because of any physical attribute (or lack thereof).

I have carried a firearm for many years–as have many people I know. Very few of us have ever had to use the firearm in an “altercation,” and I hope nobody ever does. I do know people have been approached by “individuals” wielding a knife asking for money who have pulled their weapon only to have the “individual” raise their hands and back away…

Suggesting we should just give them our money makes two errors: 1. That theft is acceptable and part of life; and 2. The assumption that the thief was just after your cash/money. How does one know what a criminal may want?

I have never “imbibed” when I carried. As most hunters and other gun owners know, safety is paramount. The only “safe” gun is a gun with no magazine and whose slide is open–so you can be sure there is no ammunition…

I find that it is those with very little knowledge of firearms who are “afraid” of them somehow causing harm. Most of those uneducated people (those who don’t know much about firearms) worry about people who carry “locked and cocked” or who carry with “one in the chamber.” I am uneducated about many things, but I try not to make opinions about things of which I have little knowledge/data…

These assumptions made by the editorial board appear as if they are not based on any knowledge of firearms or those who use firearms. You want to say something about “those people” (whichever group you refer to)? You might as well go spend some time with them prior to making your statements–and preferably prior to forming an opinion. Otherwise, you might appear as if you don’t know what you are talking about.

Those of the general public who don’t think critically may accept whatever they are told. However, the blind leading the blind may not be a good thing either… Education is never a waste of time. Look at it this way, you might alter your articles to make more logical sense IF you knew more about firearms and those who use firearms.

Assuming a person who could cause harm will cause harm is like assuming a person infected with HIV is going to infect everyone around them. Heaven forbid, we should not let “those people” come into contact with “those of us who are healthy and think straight.” This type of “reactionary language” does not educate the public and shows the speaker has little knowledge of the issues involved.

If you “hate” firearms or dislike guns, I would suggest you go to a local western shooting event.. Meet some people out there who use guns. You may be surprised to find that we are your neighbors and friends. You might be surprised to find people you like–people like you. In fact, you might be educated to drop some of the assumptions you have been making.

If you are so “liberal,” don’t describe those that disagree with you as “stupid” or somehow wanting to create “lethal cocktails.” If you do, you are adopting techniques of the “right” that you state are a waste of time and serve no purpose. If you have to resort to spin, you shouldn’t be selling your opinion.

It happens. It happened to me when I “matched” the description given by a “witness.” Should the witness’s description not be headed? Should a person who calls 911 be required to get identification of a “potential criminal” prior to calling 911?

There are many issues to deal with in this country, and “race” (not a contest to see who gets to a point first) needs to be one of them… However, there are no easy answers…

Why Not?

No real “facts” to pin our answers on…

Thought process of perpetrators is different from those who have NOT thought of committing a crime;

Car thieves are from “low income” families;

…  The list goes on.
I am sure there are many reasons for someone to steal a car:

1.  Joy-riding;

2.  Parts, sale of;

3.  Sale of car;

4.  Transportation; and/or

5.  combination of the above.

There are others, but I would assume (dangerous, I know) these are the more probable reasons…

Michele Bratcher Goodwin writes about her experiences with being stopped by the police while driving her Mercedes.  I can only sympathize with her and her experiences…

Her experiences, however valid, do not excuse inappropriate behavior by the LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) or generalizations made about LEO by those stopped.

Someone (go figure) called me “stupid,” but I was not, suddenly, struck an intellectual brick…  Rather, the person calling me “stupid” was unable to discuss a sensitive issue in a socially constructive and acceptable manner–that is my opinion anyway…

People who stop you because you are “black” say something about them–not about you.  While it is a huge waste of time and resources, the “stop” says nothing about you while it may say a lot about the person stopping you.

In discussing this with a “mixed” group (blacks, browns, yellows, whites, reds, …), each individual has stories of “being treated unfairly.”  I don’t doubt that some or all of these instances were unfair.  Does it mean the individual doing the treating was “racist” or does it mean the situation was ripe with racial issues?

If a white person questions the ownership of someone who is (insertyournon-whitecolorhere) and driving a BMW, does it mean they are profiling?  Racist?  Doing their job? Or that many preconceptions, by some or all of those all involved, are being made?

For all we know, the person driving the BMW owns the car, stole the car, is borrowing the car…

Most justice systems admit that some innocent are found guilty.  This is not fair either, but it happens.  Does it mean the prosecution is “racist” or otherwise prejudiced?  Could it mean they were working with what they have? Could it be it is Department policy and does not reflect the officer’s position (of course if it didn’t, why stop the driver…)?

In each situation, the facts may differ.

I know “black” people are stopped in their own cars, I know “white” people are called “racist” when they aren’t, and I know lots of comments and critical attacks are made.  However, all of these attacks and comments are due to the fact that, in my opinion, people don’t know how to discuss this issue in a socially-acceptable manner that is constructive and open.

To get “open and constructive,” you have to listen to what is said without interruption.  You have to hear what is being said, and you have to try and place yourself, to the best of your ability, in the “other” person’s shoes (so to speak).  You have to empathize with that person–something you can NOT do if you don’t let go of your emotional attachment to your position.

Empathy.  If you can’t practice it you will not be able to solve any issue because you will be to busy screaming about your position.  We, as a people (any people–if you are thinking COLOR here, shame on you… This comment has NOTHING to do with color…), will never have the same thought about any position (go read Federalist Paper #10).  Our paths have taken us down different roads with different experiences. 

I know those who say, “I can not expect a pure “white” person to fully appreciate being stopped due to my color can I?”  How about a “white” boy who is stopped outside of the USA in a country where most people are not white?  “You own this car?”  I’ve heard that…  It does not matter WHAT color the officer is, the practice is wrong.

The issue in the USA is that this term “racism” is really misapplied.  It matters not what the “race” is (rather an ethnic origin, etc…) because it is really treatment that is historically created by those “in power” towards those “not in power.”  In Puerto Rico, it is are you “a USA citizen (white, black, yellow, red, etc.) or are you “Puerto Rican?”

Sure, Puerto Rico has its “color flavors” in terms of Mulato, Mestizo, etc., but that is not relevant when you are talking about who you are in the “power struggle.”

Summary

We should attempt to hear people who talk to us about these issues. However, a discussion is a talk between parties where both are able to speak, hear, and empathize to the other people in the discussion. Failure for one, or both, sides to speak, hear, and empathize means there is no discussion.

Unfortunately, I don’t think there is a discussion in the USA because nobody is willing to speak, hear, and empathize. Rather, most people seem to want to scream how “racist,” “wrong,” or otherwise “unfair” the system may be instead of having a productive discussion on how to work towards a thought process where we can avoid the pitfalls we are currently falling over…

If we can’t learn to empathize, we will never be able to understand how anyone else feels in order to help them, and the rest of us, feel the same.

They want “economic sense” but do they make any?

An op-ed piece by Paul Krugman seems to indicate they the Blue Dogs do not make any sense…

Mr. Krugman states:

The subsidy portion of health reform would cost around a trillion dollars over the next decade. In all the plans currently on the table, this expense would be offset with a combination of cost savings elsewhere and additional taxes, so that there would be no overall effect on the federal deficit.

So what are the objections of the Blue Dogs?

Well, they talk a lot about fiscal responsibility, which basically boils down to worrying about the cost of those subsidies. And it’s tempting to stop right there, and cry foul. After all, where were those concerns about fiscal responsibility back in 2001, when most conservative Democrats voted enthusiastically for that year’s big Bush tax cut — a tax cut that added $1.35 trillion to the deficit?

Mr. Krugman seems to state that all of the Blue Dogs are hypocrites… He does state that “maybe they’re just being complete hypocrites…”

Perhaps they MAY be hypocrites. Perhaps Mr. Krugman is being disingenuous…

What?

How can Mr. Krugman, a nobel prize winner, not be transparent when his work is described as

A hallmark of Krugman’s work is parsimony. His models are among the most elegant: lean and thin and transparent. They have all the required parts but no unnecessary fat.

Questions for the good Nobel Prize winner…

Even Nobel prize winners have opinions, and, sometimes, they don’t support transparency…

Let me see…

Wouldn’t you want variety in options rather than parties being forced into a plan?

Secondly, can a company now create an insurance option that cuts costs, improves care, and provides an option for those seeking health care IF the proposed health care legislation passes?

As follow-ups, where is the transparency in the proposed legislation? What is covered? When is treatment guaranteed and when will I have to wait for treatment? How long will I have to wait? Do we have any estimates for any of these costs, waiting times, or treatment coverages?

If not, why would you and how do you support the legislation?

Summary

We can’t just support “a good idea.” Rather, we should support an idea that has been vetted. Why are people for Obama’s governmental posts well-vetted, even taking a long time to be appointed, while legislation is “pushed through” the legislative process without discussion?

I received the “mass e-mail” from the Obama site today…  You know, the one about “The time to act is NOW” regarding health care reform.

What is my problem with this issue?

(cozy music fades in to transition to a flashback…)

The USA government passed credit card reform to protect consumers by requiring disclosure by credit card companies.  Obama has stated

“With this bill we are putting in place some common sense reforms designed to protect consumers.”

…

“We’re not going to be giving people a free pass and we expect consumers to live within their means and pay what they owe. But we also expect financial institutions to act with the same sense of responsibility that the American people aspire to in their own lives.”

Obama did state personal responsibility is very important…

“Some get in over their heads by not using their heads,” the president said. “I want to be clear: We do not excuse or condone folks who’ve acted irresponsibly.”

To summarize the reasons why this law was needed, Obama stated

“The abuses in our credit card industry have only multiplied in the midst of this recession, when Americans can least afford to bear an extra burden,” President Obama said in his weekly address. “It is past time for rules that are fair and transparent. That is why I have called for a set of new principles to reform our credit card industry. Instead of an ‘anything goes’ approach, we need strong and reliable protections for consumers.”

(music fades out to a transition back to present time…)

Where are the “fair and transparent” specifics on how is the government going to “live within their means and pay what they owe?” How are we “using our heads” if you are suggesting we vote for and approve this proposed legislation without knowing the specifics on how to pay for it and/or its consequences to our budget. “Without using our heads” and without transparency would seem to indicate passing the proposed legislation would be “excusing or condoning folks who’ve acted irresponsibly.”

I’m looking for video of Rosa DeLlauro who made a statement about what is included in the health care reform I’ll post it when I find it…

As Obama has stated

Instead of an ‘anything goes’ approach, we need strong and reliable protections for consumers.”

The Associated Press has an article

Henry Louis Gates Jr., the nation’s pre-eminent black scholar, is accusing Cambridge police of racism after he was arrested while trying to force open the locked front door of his home near Harvard University.

I don’t know what happened at his house, and I certainly would not like being questioned like a criminal while breaking into my own home. I mean, we are entitled to destroy our own home if we so want (with relevant demolition permits, of course…).

Even if the police did not know who he was, could they have waited for him to break in and obtain information about his identification? Certainly, they could have asked him what he was doing and asked him to provide identification.

I wonder if the police showed up at my house as I was breaking in… Would they kick down my door so I could get in or would they prevent me from breaking down the door until I provided identification showing I lived at the address…

What are your thoughts?

I hope there was simply a desire to halt a potential break-in. I think that is what we all want the police to do… However, how does one react when “things go wrong?”

Does it matter if you are black or white? Does it matter if you are the police, a professor, or a regular Joe? I would hope everyone would be treated the same.

We may never know “who did what,” but I wonder how everyone involved acted that might have created a situation where none existed…

I ask that because I watched Paycheck, a movie with Ben Affleck and Uma Thurman where a corporation creates a device that lest them “see” the future.  Except that whatever they see in the device, the “watchers” take actions to “head off action they don’t like” — in effect creating the action they see.  For example, the corporation, in an attempt to avoid a war, pre-emptively strike at the country that will attack them.  Thus, the pre-emptive strike creates the war…

Is it possible that we could all reamin calm and avoid rushes to judgement (even if not prejudiced) to avoid creating a situation that we, in effect, create but think existed prior to our action(s)?

The cuttlefish actually made me write a poem of my own…  You see, upon a date many moons ago, I was described as an octopus.  Beware those thoughts…  You see, the young lady thought she was fighting 8 hands–Her actions spoke well of her defense against the onslaught, I might add..  That, however, is another story…

So, I wrote…

He passed away…

I remember the last interview he gave that I saw…

He stated the American people were “dumb.” He blamed the media and not education, although I think they are both to blame…

He stated that the population and the media seem interested in the “spectacular” rather than the “relevant.” He said journalists were supposed to tell the public what they should know and not what they wanted to know.

This gets back to public opinion or the lack thereof…

Go read Public Opinion by Walter Lippmann (available free on-line).

You will see how presentation in the media and to the public affects public opinion.

Growing Up

I think Walter would say that youth today (those under 60) are not growing up. Rather, kids seem to continue to act like High School kids throughout their life…

Petty squabbles, jealousy, bullies, gossip, …

If we can all admit that High School was really our hormones running US around without clear thought, why would we want to continue acting like “kids?”

With shows like Real Housewives of (insert your county here), I see High School (or Middle School) activity by adults. No wonder our kids fail to learn to put away childish things when they grow up. Most parents don’t.

If we could just teach kids to think critically, they might be able to grasp what their parents do not… Of course, I don’t expect anyone wants to teach people to think critically…

The Swanee flows like a cantor,
through sound and channel, percolating.
Written by Foster and fostered by Winter,
the Suwanee flows, echoing…

Words form, are written, and then spoken at Sewanee,
streaming through journals and reviews.
My mother is attending to speak to thee,
To you who should bow, low, in the pews…

Go get them Mom!

I want everyone to go download a book called “Public Opinion” by Walter Lippmann. The book is available for free on-line or can be purchased at many stores…

As in the Court system in the United States, truth is supposed to matter. In reality, what you can get people to believe is more important than truth. “Spin” and “public opinion” vary depending on how items/issues are presented.

Lets look at what is happening in Honduras…

Most people in the USA think the “military coup” in Honduras is an “over-throw” of the legally-elected President…

Ah, public opinion… Have you downloaded that book yet?

The truth is easily available, but I think people don’t want to acknowledge the truth–perhaps it damages their belief system. I don’t know…

La Gringa Blogicito is a site where an expatriate or an Honduran immigrant (USA immigrant to Honduras) talks about “things Honduran.” Go give her site a read… You might be educated.

Perhaps you will see what, exactly, the media is pushing. The truth may make you wonder WHY that “opinion” is being pushed…

Either way, let me provide you with a little bit of what is there. Just to wet your appetite, you understand…

What happened in Honduras on June 28 was not a military coup. It was the constitutional removal of a president who abused his powers and tried to subvert the country’s democratic institutions in order to stay in office.

The extent to which this episode has been misreported is truly remarkable.

If you think that statement is “crazy,” what are you afraid of to go look and research? If it is “crazy,” you can definitely prove it and not worry about your opinion being manipulated. If you do go read and your opinion is changed, make sure you verify your facts.

I have no agenda except to make sure the truth gets out there. Open, honest, factual discussions are the only way to solve any issue. If any dishonesty is involved, someone will feel (insert your adjective here).

You have to abide by Honduran Law while in Honduras.

Remember, the Constitution, even in Honduras, is a shield to protect the rights of every citizen rather than a sword to get “you” or the “numerical majority” what “you” or “they” want.

Think Critically.

I went to three Universities during my “higher” education. All of them were “in the South.” I will get back to this in a bit…

Dan Lawson is a journalism student at the University of Oregon. He has an opinion post over at the Christian Science Monitor in which he noted

The University of Oregon (UO), where I study journalism, invested millions annually in a diversity program that explicitly included “political affiliation” as a component. Yet, out of the 111 registered Oregon voters in the departments of journalism, law, political science, economics, and sociology, there were only two registered Republicans.

Mr. Lawson was warned by a “conservative” professor that he was going to be “stirring the fire” with his questions regarding whether such a one-sided political affiliation of the professors would limit discourse regarding politics and political thinking–whether religious, financial, or otherwise.

Here are a few excerpts from his post, and I suggest you go read his article

A professor who confronted me declared that he was “personally offended” by my column. He railed that his political viewpoints never affected his teaching and suggested that if I wanted a faculty with Republicans I should have attended a university in the South. “If you like conservatism you can certainly attend the University of Texas and you can walk past the statue of Jefferson Davis everyday on your way to class,” he wrote in an e-mail.

I was shocked by such a comment, which seemed an attempt to link Republicans with racist orthodoxy. When I wrote back expressing my offense, he neither apologized nor clarified his remarks.

I expected the following

“You think you’re so [expletive] cute with your little column,” she told me. “I read your piece and all you want is attention. You’re just like Bill O’Reilly. You just want to get up on your [expletive] soapbox and have people look at you.”

Why this is bad

People who are unable to communicate and discuss issues when the people in the discussion disagree must be able to remain calm and accept that some people will think differently. Failure to do so makes “you” as bad as “them.”

By this, I mean that if the female professor actually acted in that fashion, was she not “acting” just like “Bill O-Rielly” would act when confronted with some “liberal outrage?” Her failure to listen, think critically, and address the ISSUE presented shows, if accurate, a lack of an ability to discuss and educate the students. Rather, resorting to anger and “cheap shots” is the actions I expect my children to take when they don’t get their way or when I disagree with them because they have yet to gain those skills all of us adults should be required to learn.

Mr. Lawson’s summary follows

After my article on political diversity was published, I received numerous e-mails from students at other schools who spoke of similar experiences. As a result of my research and personal experience, I can now say without reservation that the lack of ideological diversity on college campuses is a dangerous threat to free and open discourse in academia. Sadly, there are few perfect solutions.

I agree.

Rant
Those who attended ECU graduate school may have had a Professor of Philosophy come talk to them during their “initiation” into the graduate school. This professor gave an example of us finding an inhabited island in the south pacific. The “islanders” worshiped a “volcano god” and would sacrifice a young lady to the “volcano god” every year to keep the “volcano god” appeased (i.e., so the volcano would not erupt…).

The professor asked us if this “sacrifice” was “wrong.” I was the only one who said “It would be wrong for me, but I am not going to judge them.”

The professor followed up the question with another. “Should we go to this island and force the islanders to stop what they are doing (sacrificing young women for “no reason”)?

I was the only student to say “No.”

He immediately fixated on me. “Are you saying you would not save the women?”

I have no idea why he didn’t ask “Why” I answered the way I did instead of enter into an attack on my position.

You see, I don’t think you can “force” people to change their opinions/beliefs using force (of arms, of trade, or of any other “power”). My comment to the professor was that “I would bring people to the island and begin educating the islanders about geology, plate tectonics, etc. so that they could understand WHY the volcano erupted so that they, themselves, could alter their behavior so that women would not be killed needlessly.

The professor stated “There is always one in each class.” After a brief pause, he continued, “Can’t you see what they are doing is wrong and should be stopped?”

I replied, “I doubt Hitler thought he was “wrong” to murder the people he killed, so I am not going to judge them “wrong.” I am going to educate them so that they can, perhaps, realize that sacrificing a woman will not stop the volcano–then they will alter their behavior and not feel forced to do so.

The professor stated that “There is always one person who doesn’t get it.” He continued his speech and quickly left after finishing.

I wonder whether he supported Bush in his invasion of Iraq because he stated he was a “liberal.” However, his suggestion to “use force” to “correct an injustice” sounds a lot like a conservative to me…

End Rant

Mr. Lawson states

What’s so remarkable is that I hadn’t actually advocated Republican ideas or conservative ideas. In fact, I’m not a conservative, nor a Republican. I simply believe in the concept of diversity – a primarily liberal idea – and think that we suffer when we don’t include ideas we find unappealing.

Failure to present an idea, however “crazy” it may seem, reduces the ability of those being educated to think critically–to think for themselves using logic and reason. If we simply “belittle” ideas out of the discussion due to their “conservative” or “liberal” nature, aren’t we doing a disservice to those being educated?

I know I bring it up all to often, but this process of “lop-sided” politics is what the Founding Fathers hoped to avoid. The Federalist Paper #10, written by James Madison, states

Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.
…
There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.
…
It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.
…
The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

What James says is that people will have bad ideas, will be greedy and put “self” above “country,” and will not be able to reach a state where everyone “agrees” with each other.

Instead of “ordering” a thought process (anyone remember the Sedition Act?), Madison describes how people, however enlightened, are “interested parties”

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.

Re-read that… I’ll wait…

Madison concludes

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.

The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.

How to do that?

Madison suggests

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

This is the reason we don’t have a pure democracy as a government. This “suggestion” is why politicians should protect the rights of the minority in a manner such that the minority can exercise their rights–rights that anyone can exercise but may not due to their political affiliation or bent. Owning and possession of a firearm by a citizen is one of these rights in my opinion.

I would never suggest we limit the free speech enjoyed by those who argue for their cause, but I see that some people can not think critically and feel a need to make me live in the manner in which they would live–limited to their actions and their beliefs.

This is not the freedom the USA was founded to protect. The freedom to have my own religion, my own thoughts and speech, my political interests, and my ability to “be different” while guaranteeing me the same rights enjoyed by every other citizen is what makes the USA great.

Now, I see politicians and educators trying to limit thought, discussion, and diversity (of thought) as if limiting diversity of thought is, somehow, not as “bad” as limiting diversity of individuals, ethnic origin, or otherwise limiting the rights of “some” to the benefit of “others.”

Summary

Only one of the Universities I attended had any “racist” attitudes that I encountered.  To say the “south” is “racist” is a logical fallacy.  People may be “racist,” but I doubt geographic regions are…

I have lived in the “South” and in the “North.”  In my experience, I have seen too many “racists” in both areas…  To say one is worse than the other is irrelevant.  The issue, to me, is that we need to educate people since ignorance can’t be “forced out”–either by physical force or by dictating a “way of thought.”

If your opinion is so “right,” you should welcome a calm discussion of the issue. You should not be “afraid” when someone questions your thoughts or beliefs–nobody has to agree with you, and I suggest, as postulated by Madison, that everyone will NOT agree. While we are social animals, we are, at heart, individuals.

I don’t buy it…

Live Science has a post where they state

Younger men feel the stress a bit more than the middle -aged men: Among 35- to 44-year-olds, 88 percent of men reported money as a significant stressor. The figure for women in that age group was 77 percent.

What percentage of those answering actually work? Are there more women than men in dual-income families such that the women feel “less stress” than the man?

Not enough information in the article for me to decide if the percentages are based on social stigma, actual job-related issues, actual gender-related differences, or other causes…

The article does have one thing right…

“Men are expected to play the role of economic provider and those who do not meet this societal norm may be seen as a failure,” he said. “The stress of perceiving this reaction from family and community members may be especially powerful.”

I have posted that I would stay at home and write the “great American Novel” IF my wife could make as much as I could in the job market… Income, in this instance, is dictated by our training rather than our worth or gender…

Live Science also states another truism…

“Rather than being embraced as a gender equalizer, the lone man in parenting groups will often get the cold shoulder because he is seen as an interloper,” Kruger said.

Women who give the “lone man” a cold shoulder in any group are guilty of the same prejudice as the men who have kept women out of the job market… Logic people. Think critically…

In Summary

Accept and judge people for who they are and don’t base anything on what they do. “What they do” is just their job… Sort of like the tax man… Often misunderstood…

A physician is just a physician… Being a physician doesn’t say anything else about a person except, hopefully, that they are smart and have passed some accreditation exams. Their job says nothing about how they treat everyone else or whether they are “good” or “evil.”

Unassociated Rant…
We don’t want the stronger to rule–animals that are ruled by the “strongest” haven’t “advanced” that much over time…

It is the “smart” individuals (male, female, hermaphrodite, etc.) that should rule in a fashion that protects the rights of all rather than the rights of those in the majority at any given time. That is what the U.S.A. was founded on–the principle of a Republic. If you don’t know much about history, search for Federalist Paper #10…

Back to the Summary

I doubt those with a “trust fund” or similar wealth are concerned about the economy as the rest of us… However, I bet both working men and women are concerned.

However, I don’t think that being a “man” or being a “woman” has anything to do with your professions.

Does it?

There are SO many “discussions” taking place on-line regarding appropriate size of the ammunition we use, and everyone seems to think that the “larger the caliber the better.”

Let me give you a version on a typical on-line forum…

ogukuo72:
Has anyone actually seen someone hit in a critical area with a 9mm and still keep coming? It sounds like one of those episodes where people keep repeating as anedotal evidence of the weakness of the 0.38, the existence of UFO, etc, but had never actually seen it.

Ratamacue:
Ogukuo, think of it this way. In Somalia, the 5.56mm round was found to take several shots to drop Somalis jacked up on khat (a coke-like drug in plant form that you chew) whereas the 7.62mm would stop them dead in their tracks. The same really applies for the 45ACP vs. 9mm argument.

Of course, Ratamacue never answered the question which IS the issue… Where did the 5.56mm (.223) ammo hit those attacking versus where the 7.62mm hit those attacking?

Saying the 7.62mm is better than the 5.56mm because “those shot with the 7.62mm” went down faster may be a logical fallacy… WHERE they attackers were hit may have been MUCH more important than that bullet hit them…

I’ll get back to this later…

Here is a question

Why did the USA Army go from the M1 Garand (Cal. .30-06) to the 5.56×45mm (.223 Remington) in today’s “M16″ style rifles IF the smaller caliber argument was always valid?

I’d love to see an answer if someone has one…

Placement is paramount.

You need to practice with your weapon, and many people are killed with small-arms.

“Why,” you ask, “are the FBI and other agencies moving to the .40 S&W or larger calibers?”

Perhaps marketing, perhaps experience with armored criminals, or other reasons. The average non-governmental person who carries a handgun is not likely to encounter an armored individual. Pulling a small .380 Auto out and shooting the attacker in the head is … quite efficient at ending the attacker’s life.

Perhaps we think “bigger-is-better.” The Panzer tank was certainly big (88mm gun, lots of armor, etc.), but it could go about 60 miles before needing to refuel. The “story” is that you need to have the “gun” when you need the gun to fire.

Carrying a “big” gun in the winter and a small gun in the summer due to clothes, layers, heat, etc. may mean you are not as “trained” in the shooting of your chosen gun as you could be…

Remember, you are not likely to encounter an army of bad guys.  Two or three are the most attackers most people encounter.  You may not need 45 rounds that can “pierce a tank…”

You likely will be scared (for you or your family), and your adrenaline will be running through your body…  This will affect how you shoot–will the gun jump?  Will you get more than one round off before being “blinded” by the flash from the gun? …

Another Red Herring…

The issue over speed vs. weight of cartridge should be ignored. Why? Go look up “momentum” on-line.  Recall your physics.  Physics doesn’t lie… Don’t let the “nuts” tell you differently…  Remember, though, that weight may be important, but only in relation to bullet size…

Summary

Hosted on the Firearms Tacical web-site is a document by the FBI that has determined

Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much discussed “shock” of bullet impact is a fable and “knock down” power is a myth. The critical element is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large, blood bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding. Penetration of less than 12 inches is too little, and, in the words of two of the participants in the 1987 Wound Ballistics Workshop, “too little penetration will get you killed.” Given the desirable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the would by increasing the size of hole made by the bullet. Any bullet which will not penetrate through vital organs from less than optimal angles is not acceptable. Of those that will penetrate, the edge is always with the bigger bullet.

So, .380 or .45 will kill. The .45 simply may have an “edge.”

However, most people can get accurate shots (in those situations when it is needed–when the adrenaline is pumping) with a smaller caliber handgun cartridge.

Ranges should allow target practice with yells, lights flashing, etc… Why?

If everyone could fire as accurately in those instances as they could at the range, “police” and other “governmental staff” wouldn’t miss with so many bullets during the shootouts. Don’t believe me? I’ll let YOU go find that data on the internet…

Where does that steak come from? How was the cow raised? What about that watermelon that looked so nice on the outside but appears barely pink on the inside… Was it ripe or did we spray it with something?

How do we know what it is we are eating? Are the “Food Companies” similar to “Cigarette Companies” if they misled the public about the safety of their products?

Paige Waehner has a blog on about.com relating to health and fitness. She asks whether you are going to see Food Inc. What is it? Food Inc. is a movie about how and where the food we eat in the United States is produced and sold.  The movie has opened this summer nationwide and will be playing at Thalian Hall in Wilmington, North Carolina on July 20, 2009.

I recommend everyone get out and see the movie.

Why?

Even if the movie is produced from a “one-sided” viewpoint, it is knowledge that you can use to frame your questions and may affect your opinion. Don’t just accept what is told to you (in the movie or at the store). Rather, question what you see and hear.

Hopefully, the movie will get people thinking… and Discussing…

Either way, eat healthier!

Macworld states

Delicious Monster’s iPhone companion app for its popular Delicious Library 2 media-cataloging application was removed from the App Store on Tuesday, though not, as it turns out, at the behest of the usual culprit, Apple. Rather, this time the objection came from online retail supergiant Amazon.

Some posting comments on that article just don’t get “it”

This is insane. According to what they are telling him, he can’t use the API on the desktop version to pull information on books/CDs/DVDs/etc. and sync that information to the iPhone app. At the very least, they need to offer some reason for this. Delicious Library has never done anything but direct more business to Amazon.

Actually, the API License states that PC users (Mac, Linux, Windows, etc.) can use it but that mobile devices can not, as pointed out by another person who posted a comment

DId you read the agreement? It explicitly says, its okay for desktop- but for mobile- no! Why? Because on the desktop there’s no point in not allowing devs to use the APIs, on the mobile world, completely different. What amazon is saying is, if you want to be the dominating app for that niche, then come out with your own revolutionary internet service and make your own app.

I tried to explain the legal issues, but I get nowhere…

Alan, over at alanquatermain, states it well

So Amazon recently changed the terms of service for their Product Advertising API, which is in use in applications such as Delicious Library. This is (I believe) the API by which DL gets its book information, and through which it provides links to related items, reviews, etc.

The new license includes this marvellous little tidbit in section 4e:

You will not, without our express prior written approval requested via this link , use any Product Advertising Content on or in connection with any site or application designed or intended for use with a mobile phone or other handheld device.

Wil attempted to contact them through the supplied link to get permission to keep Delicious Library on the store, but was knocked back— they’re not making any exceptions right now at all, for anyone. One wonders what the purpose of the link is, in that case?

So, Wil has had to remove Delicious Library for iPhone — which was in production for eight months straight — from the App Store due to a change in licensing conditions. Until Amazon removes this clause or actually does allow exceptions (as opposed to simply claiming to do so for marketing/legal ass-covering purposes) there will be NO Delicious Library for iPhone. At all.

Sorry for using so much of your text Alan, but you stated it well. Go read his site, you will like what he has to say…

There are several points to discuss:

1. Amazon can control, via the API License, who can use the API and how they can use the API;
2. The API License states (Section 4E apparently)
   

   You will not, without our express prior written approval requested via this link , use any Product Advertising Content on or in connection with any site or application designed or intended for use with a mobile phone or other handheld device.

3. Everyone else has no rights not granted to them by the license.
4. Even if the data is public data, freely obtainable from the USA government, Amazon does not have to provide the data to the general public.

I don’t like what Amazon is doing, and I think it is bad for business. However, Amazon may have a contract with another firm regarding mobile access… See what Lucas did with their mobile apps and how the licensee can and did cause for the removal of an application that violated a provision of an legal agreement between companies. If you aren’t aware of it, see the original Phonesaber application… All legal. Smart business move? Not in my opinion as I have yet to buy any mobile product from the company licensing said IP from Lucas…

However, Amazon can and likely will continue to control their IP. Some of the IP is copyrighted material, but the material may simply be on their servers. The data and the access to that data is controlled by Amazon. I don’t think anyone, after some critical thinking, would disagree that Amazon can not control their property, who uses their property, or how their property is used…

We, as a people or as individuals, have no right to legally-protected property (whether movies, music, or data). Get over it… That is like yelling at the sky because it is raining… Build a shelter.

In this case, build a better application or, better yet, pick a better partner.