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

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

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

Why is this being talked about?

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

Can money influence you?

Of course!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The posting further states

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

Say What?!

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

You see, Mr. Dershowitz states

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

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

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

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

My Opinion

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

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

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

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

I say that because Mr. Dershowitz states

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

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

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

Mr. Dershowitz also states

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

Say What?!

Let me re-quote a portion of that

they become facilitators of bigotry

Bigotry is

The state of mind of being a bigot.

A bigot is

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

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

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

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

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

Let me see….

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

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

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

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

In Summary

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

Mr. Dershowitz closes with

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

I agree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I recall the message: “Change”

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

Now I ask a question…

Where is the change?

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

So, I ask again: Where is the change?

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

How it is supposed to work

The AP story states

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

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

How it still works

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

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

Two wrongs do not make a right.

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

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

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

Money…

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

Let me quote from the article…

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

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

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

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

Isn’t this “more of the same?”

Isn’t that “the problem?”

But, there are more examples…

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

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

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

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

And lastly…

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

Nice…

If you want “Change,” …

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

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

Not quite…

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

Article I, Section VIII states

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

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

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

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

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

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

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

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

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

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

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

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

To provide and maintain a Navy;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, I laughed at

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

Asexual means “devoid of sexuality.”

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

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

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

A post on that site states

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

Now I am confused

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

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

Let me summarize

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

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

Here is why…

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

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

My Question

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

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

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

Thoughts?

I have an issue…

Yes, you are reading about it, so hush and let me type…

You see, Apple has iTunes, Nokia has Ovi, Microsoft has (well, they are developing an App Store), Blackberry has AppWorld, and Android has Market.

What I don’t get is why do these companies limit their “service” (iTunes, Ovi, MSWhatever, AppWorld, and Market) to a particular hardware platform?

Why not have the “content service” detect the device, OS, and other specifics of the hardware and determine what content is available for that device?

Picture a service called “Yahoo Content,” or the YC! for short.  Imagine you log on, via an application or via the Internet (3G, EDGE, wi-fi, etc.) and are presented with a generic “greeting” screen (such as the basic iTunes screen you see when you sign in to iTunes) presenting apps, music, maps, e-mail, etc. for your device–regardless of the device you use.

I would use such a service even if I also used the service provided by my hardware maker.  Why?  Options and freedom to choose.

Let me ask you this another way…

Would you expect your e-mail to only work with a single manufacturer’s device?  If not, why do you accept the idea that “service gateways” such as iTunes, Ovi, Market, and Appworld should be limited to a single hardware platform?

Why exclude that “other” portion of the market just because they don’t use your hardware.  If your hardware doesn’t succeed, you are done.  If you provide content for all platforms, at least you are still in business.  Either way, don’t you have more business?

iTunes works with iPods and iPhones.  Ovi works with many Nokia handsets, some with differing versions of the Symbian OS.

Why can’t a “service gateway” work with any device regardless of OS, hardware, or provider?  Seems to me it could…and should.

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

Lets look at what Calvin talks about…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is an inherent problem with that in my opinion…

II. Illegal Immigrants.

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

III. Abortions

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

There are other proposals as well.

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

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

My biggest problem with the article is that the author states

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

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

As I stated in an earlier post

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

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

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I have said before

Accept, but question…

It might be a duck…

A story today on abc talks about “sugar daddies” and their “ladies” *cough* …

The story talks about Erin Miller, 23, who uses a site, SeekingArrangement.com, to meet men.

“I’ve been shopping all over, nice cars. I got a new condo,” she said. “Every day is a new adventure.”

One of her sugar daddies lets her use his yacht. He also sends her a Rolls Royce and a chauffeur to take her shopping. Another date pays for her condo, and another gave her a Mercedes.

“Money helps tremendously with happiness, because I would not be happy dating a guy who lived at home in his parents’ basement,” she confessed.

How does a sugar baby like Miller get to know her dates?

“The dates usually start off with some coffee or a drink somewhere, and then you get to know each other, to see if you’re feeling the vibe,” she said. “And then go on a second date and start talking about your rent. And they’ll ask you how much money you need and what’s your budget.”

In return, Miller said, “the guys get a hot chick — arm candy that can make them look good and [that they can] have fun with.”

The article says critics of the site and the practice call it “prostitution,” but members of the site call it “mutually beneficial arrangement.”

Let me make it clear…

Ady Gil, a 50-year-old entrepreneur, claims he’s worth between $10 million and $50 million. He owns two large production companies in Los Angeles. He believes the arrangement site is a great way to meet women.

“You can make a deal with the girl. You don’t have to worry about whether it’s going to be ‘yes’ or ‘no,’” he said. “You don’t have to take them to dinner and hope that maybe something will happen. The cards are on the table.”

Sounds like a duck to me.

My issue with this is …

I really don’t care if prostitution is legal. I wish it was legal, monitored, and taxed… Talk about no income tax…

My issue or issues with this are:

1. Enforcing the notion that money is “all important”;
2. …

You know what? I just wish it was legal and taxed… I was going to write about how it could have a negative effect on society, but that effect is already here–money is “all.”

Instead, let these guys and girls have each other. I know I won’t be looking for those females who engage in this behavior since they are, in effect, mercenaries who work for those who they want to, but at a price… I’ve no interest in a woman who is just interested in a buck since I think that says a lot about her as a person.

As to the guys, they should read my last post and realize that if they don’t pay cash for all medical care that might be necessary to treat any sexually transmitted disease, those who may contact a STD from them can be contacted by those who receive information about the STD if medical records are kept in electronic format in accordance with the law cited in my last post.

Perhaps the guys and girls don’t care about what their action says about them–they are, after all, “wealthy” in cash. I just wish we could use the taxes we could collect on that amount of money…

Seems to me that making prostitution legal would be less of an issue than legalizing marijuana.

As long as they are “of legal age,” I guess I shouldn’t care what they do if it doesn’t hurt others…

However, I don’t see the attraction. The girls are there for the “cash” and “carry” while the guy is there for … well …

You don’t have to worry about whether it’s going to be ‘yes’ or ‘no,’” he said. “You don’t have to take them to dinner and hope that maybe something will happen. The cards are on the table.

If the guys who pay don’t care why the girl is there and the girl doesn’t care so long as she is paid, I don’t guess I should care either. However, I hope the IRS is visiting Ms. Miller since she has stated she has “significant” income that she might not be reporting.

Of course, the men who pay them won’t get into trouble with the IRS. However, we know the guys aren’t there to look out after the girls or their interests. Funny how attraction works…

There was a law passed…

It affects you more than you know…

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

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

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

So, without further ado…

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

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

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

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

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

(1) IN GENERAL-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

`(4) EFFECTIVE DATE-

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

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

`(i) January 1, 2011; or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are they all 5 years old?

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

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

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

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

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

Which is 7 years old and which is 10?

Why not say something like

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

Simply exchanging insults such as …

Why are you supporting this Nazi policy?

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

makes everyone look bad in my humble opinion.

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

Let me clarify something…

My kids argue better than those two in the video…

If you just browse the Internet, you don’t likely know or care how the pages you are looking at are coded…  You might not even know or care what browser you are using…

Developers and coders do…

Ajaxian, an online site for those who code and are interested in AJAX, states

We hear you!  Cross-browser issues continue to make our Top 10 list web development pet peeves.  And to tackle this head on, The Ajax Experience, taking place September 14-16 in Boston, MA, features extensive coverage of leading Ajax frameworks, testing tools, and the latest browser implementations, emerging JavaScript, HTML5, CSS standards, and more.

View the agenda at-a-glance now to see the essential sessions we’ve lined up for you:

http://go.techtarget.com/r/8996768/819540

What I did

I only code for those browsers that support the standards. I DO lose those who use IE since they don’t always follow the coding, and clients may not like that–good thing that isn’t my day-job…

However, browser makers will not ever meet standards if everyone keeps coding “work-arounds.” So, stop. Suggest a browser that is standard-compliant and get people to change their browser. When browser downloads and use changes, those losing market share will become “standard compliant.”

Nuff said.

Now, try and sell that to your clients…

People seem fascinated by the news that 40% of all tweets are “a waste of time” (here, here, here, and here for starters). I am surprised it was only 40%…

Don’t get me wrong, I am sure you can learn stuff on Twitter. I am equally sure that you can learn the same amount, and more, from other sources…

Tweets are the miniscule “cliff-notes” of thoughts–some quite worthless. Even if valuable information is contained in the tweet, don’t you think that information is available on the poster’s web-site’s RSS feed in much more detail?

CNET has a blog written by Chris Matyszczyk called Technically Incorrect. Recently, he posted

You check who they are and think to yourself: “I wonder what the life of an Australian fisherman who is deeply into the NBA might be like”. So you follow him and, in a way that is no more than staring at a painting at a gallery, you begin to discover.

Ah… Not if what he posts is “Eating a sandwich…”

What I am saying is that studying scat does provide useful information, but do I really want to go wade into all of that shit to find a “nugget?”

Not me…

Those who are on Twitter and who love twitter are doing what is “right” for them and their opinions differ, significantly I am sure, from mine. Diversity is good for the world–and for Twitter.

Keeping with the “nutty” theme, I present a news article that states

Brazilian teenager admitted having stabbed to death 30 men in four different states between 2006 and the last days, the police told the press today. The 17-year-old girl confessed after being arrested during a street fight in Sao José de Rio Preto (Sao Paolo province).

“I don’t have enough courage to hold a gun, but I can hold a knife,” she said. “I am confessing because I promised I would do so before becoming 18, to avoid upsetting my family,” she told the police officers who arrested her. According to the police, she confessed now to avoid being prosecuted as an adult.

These “individuals” that commit serial crimes are a real danger to society. She doesn’t “sound” “nuts,” but I wonder if she is… Or, is she simply smart to admit to them now to avoid “adult” prosecution and to bring “fame?” I see a book and movie deal that deals with men, prostitution, drugs, cartels, and revenge… Lets not forget, somehow, “honor.

I don’t recall whether serial killers often use guns. Is there any “study” on serial killers that looks at their weapon of choice? I would think, based on what little I know, that they are looking for a “connection” with the victim and want to see something other than a quick kill with a gun.

What do you think?

Someone carrying a firearm at a political event…

What do you think?

Let me tell you what I think…

The truth

Let me point out a few thoughts…

1. I think everyone at the “political event” had an opinion;
2. Most people at the event likely wanted to “get attention” about their view;
3. Arizona is one state where such “open carry” is legal;

So, anyone carrying a firearm legally should be no different than someone yelling their opinion–both are exercising their rights guaranteed by the bill of rights.

Reasoning

Just because someone disagrees with his position doesn’t mean he is “nuts” because he has a gun. A person may be nuts regardless of what side of the street they are located, and possession of a gun has nothing to do with them being “nuts.”

We in the USA have the First Amendment Right of Freedom of Speech. This freedom protects us and allows us to “speak our mind” SO LONG AS we do not slander anyone… Slanderous statements subject you to civil prosecution or, in rare jurisdictions, criminal prosecution (in some parts).

So, slanderous statements made by someone at an event is not supported by society and can subject you to prosecution because slanderous statements are not something we want to protect.

Shooting someone at an event may be illegal–it does depend on whether you shoot someone in defense of your own life. However, carrying a gun at a political event, where legal, is as legal (in that jurisdiction) as speaking your mind on your opinion–so long as your spoken statements are not slanderous…

Go read that again, please… Try to understand the legal rights being discussed and remove your “emotion” from the discussion/analysis.

Summary

You have rights in the USA. The right to an attorney (always take it and do NOT talk to police..), the right to remain silent (do so after requesting your attorney…), the right to speak your mind, and the right to own and possess a gun.

Go ask your Congressman or Congresswoman a question

I bet most of the politicians don’t know what the amendments to the constitution provide for or protect.. Don’t agree? Go ask them. I dare you.

Constitution, what it is for

The USA Constitution is a shield that protects everyone’s rights rather than a sword to remove any right from anyone not in the majority or in the White House. We need to remember that our founding fathers did revolt to form this country–they did find the situation at that time “oppressive.”

The founding fathers wanted us to have the ability to fight off a government that became “too oppressive” to those governed. I don’t think we are anywhere near that point at this time…(so back off…).

However, why does any politician seem to be fond of saying speaking up at political rallies and “town hall meetings” is “un-American” or “disruptive.” Why is it our politicians seem to want to take away the rights that even our constitution guarantees? I mean if we can’t speak out in opposition to a political position at a “town hall” event where the topic IS that political position, where are we supposed to discuss these issues?

Think about that…

Double Standard Politicians

Many of the politicians who say “speaking your mind in opposition to their position” is un-American and unpatriotic have supported “disruption” and protest in the past. To support it when you are “not in power” and to oppose it when “you are in power” is an obvious double standard–it is okay for me to do but not okay for you to do.

It is an easy step for them to next say you can’t speak your mind because it is causing opposition to your government. Congress can pass a law to make that illegal.

You are not saying that is not possible… I give you HISTORY… Go read it for yourself. Go read it somewhere else where you might be willing to see reason.

Wikipedia states

United States

[edit] Civilian

There have been 24 attempts in the United States to regulate speech that has been deemed seditious. In 1798, President John Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts, the fourth of which, the Sedition Act or “An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States” set out punishments of up to two years’ imprisonment for “opposing or resisting any law of the United States” or writing or publishing “false, scandalous, and malicious writing” about the President or Congress (but specifically not the Vice-President). The act was allowed to expire in 1801 after the election of Thomas Jefferson to the presidency. He was Vice President at the time of the Act’s passage.

Under the Espionage Act of 1917, section 3 made it a crime, punishable by 20 years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000, to wilfully spread false news of the US military with an intent to disrupt their operations, to foment mutiny in the ranks, or obstruct recruiting. The act was amended in 1918 by the Sedition Act, which expanded the purview of the Espionage Act to any statement criticizing the government. The act was upheld in 1919 in Schenck v. United States, but was largely repealed in 1921, leaving laws forbidding espionage and allowing military censorship of sensitive material.

In 1940, the Alien Registration Act or Smith Act was passed, which made it a crime to advocate or teach the desirability of overthrowing the United States Government, or to be a member of any organization which does the same. It was often used against Communist organizations. The act was invoked in three major trials, one of the Socialist Worker’s Party in Minneapolis in 1941, resulting in 23 convictions, and again in what became known as the Great Sedition Trial of 1944 in which a number of pro-Nazi figures were indicted but released when the proceedings ended in a mistrial. A series of trials of 140 leaders of the Communist Party USA was also predicated upon the Smith Act beginning in 1949, and lasting until 1957. Although the Supreme Court upheld the convictions of 11 CPUSA leaders in 1951, the court reversed itself in 1957 in Yates v. United States by ruling that teaching an ideal, no matter how harmful it may seem, does not equal advocating or planning its implementation. Although unused since at least 1961, the Smith Act remains US law.

Laura Berg, a nurse at a United States Department of Veterans Affairs-run hospital in New Mexico was investigated for sedition in September 2005^[13] after writing a letter^[14][15] to the editor of a local newspaper, accusing several national leaders of criminal negligence. Though their action was later deemed unwarranted by the director of Veteran Affairs, local human resources personnel took it upon themselves to request an FBI investigation. Ms Berg was represented by the ACLU^[16]. Charges were dropped in 2006[1].

[edit] Military

Sedition is a punishable offence under the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 94^[17].

Again, if you don’t think this is true, go do your own research. Just try to think critically before responding…

Reuters has a post that states

The Federal Court of Justice said it had rescinded a conviction against a man fined 4,200 euros ($5,993) for possessing 100 T-shirts due for sale emblazoned with the words “Blood & Honor” — a translation of the Hitler Youth slogan “Blut und Ehre.”

The reasoning?

The display of Nazi symbols is forbidden in Germany, but the court said the= context of the original phrase had been sufficiently distorted to render its usage legal.

“By translation into another language, the Nazi slogan, which is characterized not just by its meaning but also by the German language, is fundamentally transformed,” it said.

Is this right?

I think it is right… How can you eliminate a phrase that was not unique to a group that committed atrocities without giving that group command of or control over your language?

How long is “long enough?”

How long does a country or a people need to wait before letting use of a phrase or symbol back into common usage? Does it matter if the word, phrase, or symbol was a symbol of hate against any particular group or just a symbol of their movement?

Summary

How is history taught if all of the Nazi words, phrases, and symbols are illegal in Germany? How do we make sure we don’t repeat the errors made before “our time” if we continue to erase vestiges of history to be “politically correct?”

I suggest we don’t let anyone control the words that can be used in a language. Rather, I think we should educate the population and hope it takes…

You may think much of the arguments going on between “illegal downloaders” of music and movies and the MPAA and RIAA does not affect you or your family. However, a court rulings may affect you.

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

Since a “picture is worth a thousand words,” I will try to use words to draw a picture, an example if you will, that will illustrate what I mean…

I go to Blockbuster and buy, paying with cash to avoid interest on my purchase, a copy of Taken–a wonderful movie with Liam Neeson. I have two DVD players at home–1 in the kids “play room” and one in our living room.

However, I am not always at home… The television may not be “available” when I want to watch the movie. I might want to watch the movie on the plane. I might want to watch the movie as I wait for a client out in the middle of nowhere.

What can I do if I don’t have a DVD-equipped laptop or portable DVD-player?

Under the DMCA, I can do nothing even though I have legally purchased the DVD.

Why?

When I buy the DVD, I do not “purchase’ the movie. What I purchase is a license to view the content, the video, on the DVD as allowed by the license.

Yes, wrap your mind around that for a moment.

USA Copyright Office position

I have written about this before, but that post has been “lost” in the “cloud” of the internet and database failure… I am trying to get all that data back from the Wayback Machine (check it out if you aren’t aware of what it is…).

In that post I noted:

The United States Copyright Office states in a report that

We believe that there is a strong case that the making of a buffer copy in the course of streaming is a fair use. Fair use is a defense that may limit any of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights, including the reproduction right implicated in temporary copies. In order to assess whether a particular use of the works at issue is a fair use, section 107 requires the consideration and balancing of four mandatory, but nonexclusive, factors on a case-by-case basis.

In examining the first factor - the purpose and character of the use - it appears that the making of buffer copies is commercial and not transformative. However, the use does not supersede or supplant the market for the original works. Buffer copies are a means to a noninfringing and socially beneficial end - the licensed performance of these works. There is no commercial exploitation intended or made of the buffer copy in itself. The first factor weighs in favor of fair use.

The second factor - the nature of the copyrighted work - weighs against a finding of fair use because musical works are generally creative.

The third factor - the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole - would also be likely to weigh against fair use since, in aggregate, an entire musical work is copied in the RAM buffer. Since this is necessary in order to carry out a licensed performance of the work, however, the factor should be of little weight.

In analyzing the fourth factor - the effect of the use on the actual or potential market for the work - the effect appears to be minimal or nonexistent. This factor strongly weighs in favor of fair use.

Two of the four statutory factors weigh in favor of fair use, but fair use is also an “equitable rule of reason.” In the case of temporary buffer copies, we believe that the equities unquestionably favor the user. The sole purpose for making the buffer copies is to permit an activity that is licensed by the copyright owner and for which the copyright owner receives a performance royalty. In essence, copyright owners appear to be seeking to be paid twice for the same activity. Additionally, it is technologically necessary to make buffer copies in order to carry out a digital performance of music over the Internet. Finally, the buffer copies exist for too short a period of time to be exploited in any way other than as a narrowly tailored means to enable the authorized performance of the work. On balance, therefore, the equities weigh heavily in favor of fair use.

This argument is for the storage of content in RAM–as in when you watch the DVD on your computer, the storage of the dvd content in RAM is a ‘fair use’ and such ‘equities weigh heavily in favor of fair use.”

Note it did not say that such use WAS legal.

Post Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) Analysis

It does not appear, from their document, that making a backup or making a copy of content on a HD or other solid media (Compact Flash, SD, etc.) is considered fair use by the United States Copyright Office. Although I think and argue that such storage, by definition, is covered by the fair-use doctrine, I think the Court would agree with the U.S. Copyright Office that only the temporary storage of copyrighted content (in the example given, they talk about the content on a DVD) in a computer’s RAM may be fair-use of the copyrighted material. Note that the ‘permanent storage’ of content on an MP3 layer or other device (PDA, mobile phone, etc.) does not satisfy the U.S. Copyright Office’s analysis as being fair-use of copyrighted material.

Where does that leave us?

In a place that makes no logical sense and is void of reason…

The reason I “buy” a movie is to watch the content–lets call the “movie” “content” to differentiate the actual movie (video) from the DVD on which the movie is packaged and distributed.

To me, the content is stored on a DVD. The buyer does not really care how the media is packaged–iTunes simply downloads music now with no “package” and with no copy protection…

So, I buy the content to see the movie. If I want to copy that content to my mobile phone, why can’t I? I have bought the right to watch the content… Haven’t I?

According to the DMCA, you have no right to “rip” the movie from a legally purchased DVD so that you can watch it on your iPhone or on any other system UNLESS the DVD is in the drive and the content is being read from that DVD-since that content is stored, however briefly, within a device’s memory does meet the “fair use” test.

As I stated earlier, the law does not always make sense.

Why Influence is mentioned

Movie companies and the MPAA are the ones that pushed the DMCA through Congress. While buying on iTunes does not violate the DMCA, the ability to purchase non-protected content might be more of a threat than saying I have to pay more for the right to see content I have purchased on a DVD on my iPhone or other mobile device is difficult for me to swallow…

I see movies that “include” a digital copy, but that movie often is at least $5.00 more expensive than the same “movie” that does not include that digital content. Is that “fair?” Even iTunes may charge more, but it is to get the version of the song in a non-protected format for use, say, on a non-Apple music player…

While I doubt any movie company would sue a person who ripped a legally-purchased movie to their mobile device for their own use, they can… Let that sink in for a minute…

Is there a solution to this mess?

There was a proposal called H.R. 1201, Digital Media Consumers’ Rights Act of 2005, that was introduced into the House… It is sitting there…

Current Court Cases

A court has ruled that Real, the company that makes the Real Player, has violated the law.  An article here states

“The court appreciates Real’s argument that a consumer has a right to make a backup copy of a DVD for their own personal use,” Patel wrote, but noted that “a federal law has nonetheless made it illegal to manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies.”

Dan Glickman, chairman and CEO of Motion Picture Association of America Inc., said in a written statement Tuesday that the ruling “affirms what we have known all along: RealNetworks took a license to build a DVD-player and instead made an illegal DVD-copier.”

“This is a victory for the creators and producers of motion pictures and television shows and for the rule of law in our digital economy,” he said.

You may be asking, “How does buying a movie but making a copy of that movie for backup purposes or to view it on your mobile phone a victory for the creators and producers of motion pictures and television shows?”

The Answer: The creators and producers of motion pictures and television shows can now charge you for the “digital copy” and charge you for viewing said content on-line even if you have purchased the DVD. In other words, it guarantees more income for those parties.

Don’t get me wrong. I know the DMCA makes moving the content to a mobile phone illegal. I just don’t think the members of Congress thought about this or had conversations with the EFF or with more “middle-of-the-road” consultants who would explain the situation as I have…

When a person buys a movie at Blockbuster that is stored and packaged on a DVD, that buyer is intending to purchase the content on that DVD–the video of the “movie.” The buyer is not intending to buy the right to view the content (video) while the DVD is in the drive. I am all for creators, producers, directors, gophers, distributors, and all of the others who are involved in the making and distributing of content to make a living. What I want to guarantee is that money I have spent for content that does go to those listed does not prevent me from enjoying the content because of how my content was packaged (on a DVD, memory card, VHS, etc.).

Looking at this in another light, the DMCA would have made the VHS illegal. If that would not be a barrier to technological innovation, I don’t know what would meet that definition…

What we are looking for here is a method to prevent the illegal distribution of content to those who have not paid for said content. What we want to allow is for people who legally have purchased said content to have the ability to watch that content–even if the media on which that content was distributed is destroyed.”

Doesn’t that make more sense?

Summary

You see, the law, often, is not logical or based on any good science. Law is what people in Congress decide should be the law.

My Rant

James Madison is supposed to have said

There is no maxim, in my opinion, which is more liable to be misapplied, and which, therefore, more needs elucidation, than the current one, that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong.

Perhaps he should have said that

There is no maxim, in my opinion, which is more liable to be misapplied, and which, therefore, more needs elucidation, than the current one, that the laws passed by Congress are the standard of right and wrong or provide a “benefit” to those governed.

James Madison is also supposed to have stated

In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

I’d like Congress to reign in on passing laws that benefit even the “majority” of those governed but that might reduce the preferences of those in the minority. You see, the Republic of the United States of America is a Republic for a reason. We are supposed to be protecting the rights of everyone, not just the numerical majority or those with money to influence votes (See Federalist Paper #10). While we can pass all sorts of legislation and get it through Congress, the question is does that legislation reduce anyone’s rights? If it does, we might not should be passing the legislation if the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, taken into context with historical events, are to be protected for all citizens.

Like the Second Amendment… James Madison stated

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.

At the time of the passing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, people were well aware that a government could be so overbearing towards the citizenry that an armed populous would be required to remove that tyranny. If citizens, now or then, did not have “arms,” there is less of a guarantee that any tyranny, if it were to arise, could be overthrown. You have to remember why the text was added and what they went through and wanted to guarantee for future generations.

Remember, most of those “Founding Fathers” probably thought, initially, that there was nothing wrong with the way the British were governing the country. Only when the government oppressed the citizens did the Founding Fathers deem action was necessary to guarantee rights for everyone–not just the majority.

In Conclusion

The problem is that while Congress seems to be saying that “the other side” should not organize rallies in opposition to certain Laws, the public has no access to Congress in a manner that will get them to change their mind. The MPAA and their members (Disney, ABC, and other content producers/distributors) have deep pockets and write big checks.

Think this isn’t how it works? If not, why aren’t all political contributions made anonymous or prohibited? We all know ideas are sold, and the currency, often, is not based on reason or logic.

Not so complex…is it?

There is a lot of information, good and bad, out in the “cloud” and on the Internet, about what the Health Care Bill proposes to do and cover and what it won’t do and/or cover…

Here is a link to the 800-lb Gorilla straight from the House of Representatives web-site. Yes, it is large…

I really advise everyone to go read this bill. It isn’t about enjoying the reading or that the reading is fun. However, this, like all bills, affect you and everyone else. Shouldn’t we know what Congress is passing whether or not they know what they are passing?

Here are a few things that concern me:

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

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

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-

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

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

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

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

(b) Grace Period for Current Employment-based Health Plans-

(1) GRACE PERIOD-

(A) IN GENERAL- The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121.

(B) EXCEPTION FOR LIMITED BENEFITS PLANS- Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an employment-based health plan in which the coverage consists only of one or more of the following:

(i) Any coverage described in section 3001(a)(1)(B)(ii)(IV) of division B of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5).

(ii) Excepted benefits (as defined in section 733(c) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974), including coverage under a specified disease or illness policy described in paragraph (3)(A) of such section.

(iii) Such other limited benefits as the Commissioner may specify.

In no case shall an employment-based health plan in which the coverage consists only of one or more of the coverage or benefits described in clauses (i) through (iii) be treated as acceptable coverage under this division

(2) TRANSITIONAL TREATMENT AS ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE- During the grace period specified in paragraph (1)(A), an employment-based health plan that is described in such paragraph shall be treated as acceptable coverage under this division.

(c) Limitation on Individual Health Insurance Coverage-

(1) IN GENERAL- Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.

(2) SEPARATE, EXCEPTED COVERAGE PERMITTED- Excepted benefits (as defined in section 2791(c) of the Public Health Service Act) are not included within the definition of health insurance coverage. Nothing in paragraph (1) shall prevent the offering, other than through the Health Insurance Exchange, of excepted benefits so long as it is offered and priced separately from health insurance coverage.

So, lets look at these issues:

1. “`Grandfathered health insurance coverage’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met.” This means the health care provided by your employer is allowed after this law is passed.

That is good. I was worried, like most, that our “choice” or our ability to chose to NOT participate in the public plan would be removed…

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

Wait. Now it is saying that I can keep my current insurance through a private party, like BCBS, only if the company does not enroll any individual in the plan after the effective date of Y1 of the plan? I thought I could choose to not participate and keep the insurance my employer offered. If not, am I not forced to the public option?

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

Wait… Now, my employer does not have the freedom to change plans within BCBS because doing so would be a change of a term or condition? Thus, if the renewal for the BCBS came in at a very expensive number, they company could not choose to reduce the plan from a 90/10 to an 80/20 and still let me get coverage through work? Instead, I would be forced to participate in the government plan?

4. (2) SEPARATE, EXCEPTED COVERAGE PERMITTED- Excepted benefits (as defined in section 2791(c) of the Public Health Service Act) are not included within the definition of health insurance coverage. Nothing in paragraph (1) shall prevent the offering, other than through the Health Insurance Exchange, of excepted benefits so long as it is offered and priced separately from health insurance coverage.

   Is Federal Insurance “Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage” or is it not affected, at all, by the new proposal? I want to know whether federal employees can keep electing to take under the FEHB or whether federal employees will be required to join the health system proposed by H.R. 3200. Anyone have that answer?

My suggestion

Why not give the “not what you call insurance” that is provided under the FEHB to all citizens of the United States so that everyone can get the same insurance you, congressmen/women, can get? Why not let what is good for the goose be good for the gander?

Summary

I don’t know whether this is expected to be removed, but this appears to get rid of private insurance companies and/or force new hires to participate in the government plan even if the company offered health care, previously, as part of their employment package…

Why?

I don’t know.

Why not give everyone the same insurance government workers have?

I don’t know. Why don’t you ask them at the next town meeting?

Let me know whether you are now part of the “extremist right” because you have a valid question that might be different from “theirs”–whether or not they are democrats like you or not…

Regardless of your party, you should quote Ms. Clinton who said

There cannot be true democracy unless women’s voices are heard. There cannot be true democracy unless women are given the opportunity to take responsibility for their own lives. There cannot be true democracy unless all citizens are able to participate fully in the lives of their country. [July 11, 1997]

I’m sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.

I’ll also provide a few by James Madison:

There is no maxim, in my opinion, which is more liable to be misapplied, and which, therefore, more needs elucidation, than the current one, that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong.

The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to an uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government.

It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.

and finally

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.

Any debate has people on “sides.” However, the idea of the debate is to discuss issues and to address the reasoning and theories being addressed and proposed by the “sides.”

So, when I see people like hawgrider (forum name on the Times Colomnist forum) talk about putting people in jail if they possess a firearm, I wonder where the reason is in that statement. That hawgrider does not like guns is clear, but I don’t get the reason or logic of their thought process…

Lets assume we make possession of a firearm illegal. Work with me…

So now, after passage of that legislation, possession of a firearm is illegal. What happens?

Do the criminals stop carrying their firearms over the fear of a mandatory 5-year sentence for the possession?

If not, what does it do? Wait, the legislation makes committing a crime with any firearm receive a mandatory 10-year sentence… Most violent crimes that are committed with a firearm can already receive such sentences. But wait, they are not always mandatory…

Lets say we arrest 1 million people who carry. Since most countries can’t house the criminals now, how do we: 1. pay for it; 2. sustain it; …

The issue here is that making possession a crime does nothing to lower or limit people from becoming criminals… Does it?

Where must we start?

We must teach empathy–to kids. Kids must understand that people who are critical to other kids are trying to feel better about themselves or to look better, somehow, to other kids.

Let me explain if you don’t understand… Kids who call other kids “fat” don’t do it because the kid is overweight–anyone can see that if it is true. They do it to get people to laugh or to point out that they, the speaker, are not “fat.” This is done to either make the “fat” kid look “bad” and to make the “speaker” look “good” or, at a minimum, to take the focus off of the speaker…

The kid who calls the other kid “fat” is the one who looks weak to me since they are resorting to an activity, being critical to others, that does not solve any problem but simply shows they are unable to constructively deal with their emotions.

We need to teach kids to deal with their emotional baggage so that it doesn’t resort to violence.

We don’t outlaw alcohol because it “causes” death, and I don’t see us outlawing automobiles because they result in the death of many people.

While guns and cars have been used to kill people, those items don’t act on their own. Rather, a person directs the action.

If you can change how people act, you can lower violence and murder. If you don’t think you can alter behavior, then you have given up and want to remove the public’s right to freedom in some vain attempt to have a “safe” life. Might as well prohibit mountain climbing, skiing, and other activities that are “dangerous” since life is so precious.

That is a really bad example, but I think saying limiting the legal possession of a firearm will lower violent firearm violence is just as much as a logical fallacy. You see, the criminal already breaking the law by committing the crime (with our without the firearm). What makes you think the criminal would not have a firearm regardless of what the law allows? Do you think the extra 5 year sentence will actually make the crook stop and say, “Oh, that isn’t worth it?”

I don’t think the criminal thinks that way. I think the criminal would say, “I’ll move to Canada because people there won’t be armed. At least it will be safer for me to steal from people I know aren’t armed.”

Violence in the USA is high. It is also very high in cities where firearm rules prohibit most citizens from carrying firearms. If firearm violence in NYC, LA, and Chicago is so high when it is illegal to carry there (for most), how does making possession illegal reduce that crime or violence?

If most of those committing that violence are gangs of underage kids, who are already breaking the law since it is illegal for them to possess the handgun, how will passage of a new law prevent that kid from getting a gun?

We need better enforcement of laws that prevent guns from getting into the hands of those who shouldn’t have them. When was the last time you heard of the police arresting people for the illegal sale of these arms? Isn’t that a problem?

As an example, did making possession of marijuana a crime reduce the possession of marijuana by those that wanted to use it? The laws that are passed will prevent those who follow the law from possession. The law does nothing to curb use by those who will use anyway…

Oh, but the marijuana only kills me. That is what I hear. Sure… The argument about the law making the possession illegal that did not decrease the use of marijuana is what I say is irrelevant. I didn’t say you should or should not possess marijuana if YOU want to. I just said the law wouldn’t stop people from possessing it. Sort of like my argument that laws passed to make possession of a firearm a crime will not stop people from carrying… It just criminalizes the possession of the firearm regardless of whether that possession ever hurts anyone…

I get it people don’t like firearms. But to prevent someone from carrying it who will never murder an innocent person does not mean the only reason to carry one is in order to kill someone. Even if it does mean that, I don’t think there is a reason to remvoe that person’s right to carry a firearm.

Don’t think so? Let me explain… If a person, who was murdered by a criminal committing a crime with handgun had a gun and knew how to use it, would that murdered person been “wrong” or a “murderer” IF they could have killed the criminal trying to murder them? Would that person be a criminal? If not, possessing and carrying a firearm should not be illegal. We should have a right to self defense.

Or do you find some flaw with my argument that you can explain to me so that I can understand–even if I disagree with your rationale?

This can cover so much, and I hope you realize that you need to be aware of your “situational awareness.”

However, I specifically want to refer to people hiking/walking/working near international borders…

We have had several incidents along international borders where “USA Citizens” have been “taken” captive by countries for “entering the country illegally.”

I would love to have the following information:

1. Were the two reporters (Laura Ling and Euna Lee) in North Korea when they were “taken?”
2. If they were in NK, why didn’t they know they were in NK?
3. If they were in NK, then aren’t they guilty of “entering NK illegally?”

I think I will only have an issue if #3 turns out to be true…

I don’t see us releasing “detained” non-residents when leaders from Central and South America come to visit the USA… Do we have an issue here?

Would we be saying that NK isn’t, somehow, fair so that our work to gain their release is acceptable when we don’t release people who come across our border? Does it matter WHY the person came across the border?

Similarly, if the three hikers were “taken” while in Iran, should we make it a national crisis to gain their release? If we always work to “gain their release,” what incentive is there for anyone to be aware of their “situational awareness?”

I sympathize with their situation, but I see Lisa Ling state

But Lisa Ling noted that there are humanitarian reasons to seek the release of the journalists: Her sister Laura suffers from a stomach ulcer, and Lee is the mother of a young daughter.

Say what?

Many prisoners have kids and/or medical problems, and I don’t know whether those qualify for “humanitarian reasons for release” unless we plan on giving the same treatment to everyone else…

What do you think?

How far should governments go to secure the release of citizens held by foreign governments?

How much “interaction” should be allowed by private citizens, who are not on a governmental visit, who interact with countries that are on the terror list? I mean, I would be afraid that I would be arrested by the USA government if I went to Iran or North Korea stating I was going to try to secure their release…

Did Clinton break any laws if this was a “private” trip? Does it matter that it was a “mercy mission?”

Speak up because I think we are moving to a point where personal responsibility, for anything, is being pushed away so that we count on our government, or someone else, to provide “those things” for us…

What say you?

I think we all agree.

Now, who do you think I mean by “all?”

No, take your time and think about the question and your answer…

I mean everyone.

Why that is important

Many people think people who commit violent acts may not value life. I disagree.

I have discussed this topic with many people, and most people do not seem able to get past the act that was committed–an act that they, and most, describe as “terrible.”

For instance, the AP reports on the recent killing of three women in Pennsylvania by a man who is characterized as “hating women.”

I don’t see that he hated women. The news media states his blog had numerous posts about how he could not find a woman who liked him, how he was alone, how he felt ostracized… Apparently his site also links to a domain called “http://crazygeorge.com” which is password-protected…

It appears as if he had no hope of finding a woman who could value him for being himself. I am not suggesting we should just “accept,” but I point out that he wanted a woman in a relationship and appeared to be jealous of those men who were in a relationship.

I don’t see that he thought life wasn’t precious. Rather, he was without hope, he saw no better future, and he was in pain.

He did murder people. Don’t get me wrong, I am not “on his side” and “against women.”

So, what is the point?

The media seems to focus on the terrible actions of people that cause death and/or injury to others who are “innocent.”

This is like treating the cough when we should be treating the cancer.

What I mean is we focus on the action resulting from a problem that predates the action and that might be, wholly or in part, responsible for what “caused” the action.

The problem in this case could be mental illness (including depression). It could be that as a society, we could work to teach our kids and ourselves (adults) to not ostracize others due to “differences” or other issues such as “being fat,” “being smart,” “being stupid,” …

While everyone “talks” a great game of diversity being desired, I see most people trying to fit into a cookie-cutter molds–white, straight teeth, “perfect” (yet fake) chests, chiseled cheeks, and finely cut hair. If you think I am only talking about women, you are being prejudiced… I speak of men and women…

Kids today push those who are different “out of the group” so as to appear “better.” If you, an adult, see this behavior and agree with it, you have not grown up yet… Rather, you are still acting like a child, and you need to grow up.

What you see on television, reality show or not, is fiction. Finding love on the Bachelor? Give me a break… Do you actually think a serious and trusting relationship can start between two people when the “winner” is promised money if they are picked?

Just so, the question is why do you hang out with who you do? Why do you push away those who are “different” or who may not be as “social” (act in a socially-acceptable manner) as you? Pushing people “out” and ostracizing them causes a problem with that person that could be avoided. Engaging people who are different makes you and them grow.

Who knows if all of these people started with a mental condition or if it was, somehow, created by social pressure?

My point is that they are people too–they feel pain, loneliness, and heartache. To assume some ill-thought action reduces a person to being non-human pulls a sheet over the issue and hides the fact that any human is capable of terrible things. The difference is that none of us have ever felt the way they felt–whether that is outright hate or hopelessness.

To assume that people who commit these acts are someone so different from us that we can not ever see this happening is what gets us all into trouble… “Oh, this could never happen to me and my friends…” Don’t you think some of his friends and/or acquaintances said the same thing?

I watched Crossing Over recently…

It puts this point into perspective. In the movie, a young Muslim girl writes a high school paper on how she viewed the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. She stated that those committing the acts were finally heard–that we might not like what they had to say, but that they were heard.

Why this hits home

We label “them” as terrorists, nuts, hate-mongers, or some “other” term to separate “them” from “us.” That does a disservice to them, us, and society, and I don’t think it solves the problem…

I think these violent acts are not just about causing harm (although that may be part of what those involved intended). I think these acts are about being heard, about feeling as if there is “no other way” to deal with the situation, a way to push your agenda forward against what feels like an overwhelming tide…

We don’t like what we hear…

Are we willing to listen earlier if it will avoid these problems in the future? Sitting at a table may provide enough of a release for people to vent and relate so that these actions seem unimaginable to everyone.

I don’t like what was done, and I don’t condone killing people. However, I think we could not be so quick to “inhumanize” people who commit acts that we, due to our path and position in life, can not understand–because we don’t take the time or have the inclination to try to understand their position/feelings.

We don’t try to see why the act was committed. We seem content to accept that it happened and should not have happened. We can’t be bothered to try to understand someone who is so “terrible” or take the time to help people feel more a part of our society. We seem to think that “there is no rationalization for the act…”

It appears we simply can’t be bothered…

I wonder whether that makes us as much of a monster…

My wife works in the medical field, and she hears stories from people who work directly with patients. One of her recent conversations was with a hospital employee who works in the Emergency Room (ER).

The ER staff stated she had many issues with people who came to the ER:

1. It is for emergencies only! Too many people show up that do not have any “life-threatening” issues;
2. People complain–you will see a triage nurse who will place you in an order with those who are more critical get seen first…
3. People bring many relatives/friends to the ER. This takes up space and could expose those people to infections;
4. Expect a long wait…
5. …

What I have a problem with…

Her whole attitude and lack of compassion. Basically, this hospital employee has no empathy for those coming to he ER.

1. How do those visiting the ER know if their condition is “life-threatening?” Perhaps they are not overly educated or have been sick for a long time.
2. If you can complain, why can’t they? Why not understand why they complain and try to facilitate care?
3. Are you serious? If someone is infections, they should be quarantined after seeing the triage nurse, and asking people not to bring a friend or a family member (or members) is … not helping anything. I have yet to see a “healthy” visitor somehow make the care the ER provides less efficient somehow…
4. Yes, we do.
5 …

You see, being critical isn’t helping. Being critical gets other people to get their back up… So, empathize and try to put yourself in their shoes. Certainly, you are entitled to your opinions, but you need to understand that what is “right” for you may not be “right” for anyone else…

Be nice. Remember, those early lessons in life (be fair, be nice, help out, …) are those that would make the world a better place.