I’ll tell you what I think…

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

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

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

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

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

Sort of like Polanski…

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

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

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

Examples

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

The list goes on.

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

Where is the empathy?

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

Do you think getting mad is solving any issues?

Actually, practice shows it does…

Here is the rub.

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

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

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

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

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

cough

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

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

Where is critical thought?

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

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

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

Summary

Need proof?

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

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

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

Critical thinking and Empathy - the only way to enlightenment.

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

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

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

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

The Associated Press states

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

She further states, get ready for it, …

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where is Steven Seagal when you need him?

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

Parents in Long Island are saying that it was scary…

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

The New York Post reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remember…

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

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

Time has a posting that talks about finger-pointing and the intelligence of dogs…

Understanding a pointed finger may seem easy, but consider this: while humans and canines can do it naturally, no other known species in the animal kingdom can. Consider too all the mental work that goes into figuring out what a pointed finger means: paying close attention to a person, recognizing that a gesture reflects a thought, that another animal can even have a thought.

Are they serious? “Consider all th emental work that goes into figuring out what a pointed finger means…”

As children we don’t know what the finger means either. What we do is learn to follow it after it is always pointing… We learn that where the finger was pointing is what our parents were trying to get us to look/go/etc.

I doubt a dog “just gets it” the first time a person points. Rather, there is a learning curve–just as there is with “sit” or “back.”

Yes, my dog walks back from whence he came when I say “back.”

To save time and be efficient, I have trained my dog to defecate… As funny and strange as it may seem, my dog knows to do his business when I say “mierda.”

I have trained two dogs this way, and it is much more efficient for me (and, perhaps, the dog) for him to know that he needs to go “do his business.” No 1hour walks while he sniffs every smell in the neighborhood, and no wondering where he will “dump.”

Oh, I didn’t mention that did I? I trained my last dog to only defecate in a flowerbed (on pine straw actually). My new dog only does his business on the back right side of my yard where no kids play–that is “dog defecation” territory.

I am thinking I should have trained him to stick to the flowerbeds along the back property line… Fertilize and off the grass.

I’ll know better next time…

However, I think finger pointing IS understood by other animals. Gorillas can communicate using sign language, and I bet we could teach them to “follow the finger.”

However, gorillas might actually already be pointing…

Of course, dogs have been bred to understand us since those that don’t might not have been one of those that survived for being the “fittest.”

Obama spoke at the UN and stated

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

The post at Yahoo states

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slavery has a world-wide history

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is his so hard to understand?

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

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

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

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

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

Think we are far from that day?

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

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

Really.

If we do have “fundamental human rights, wouldn’t it be something like the right to a chance at life or a right to an opportunity to (whatever)?

How is it we, opposed to other animals and plants, have some “fundamental human right?

I’ll tell you…

We define it.

However, we don’t have a “fundamental human right” if we define it.

Do we?

I don’t think so…

Reuters has an article that states

Leo Bryant, a lead researcher on a World Health Organisation study on population growth and climate change, said the stigma attached to birth control in both developing and developed countries was hindering vital progress.

“We are certainly not advocating that governments should start telling people how many children they can have,” said Bryant, an advocacy manager at the family planning group Marie Stopes International, who wrote a commentary in the Lancet medical journal on Friday.

“The ability to choose your family size…is a fundamental human right. But lack of access to family planning means millions of people in developing countries don’t have that right,” he told Reuters.

China limited the number of children people could have, and don’t we acknowledge that, at some point, we will have to limit births? If not, how do we afford to feed, house, medicate, care for, …

You get the picture.

Don’t you?

Nancy Pelosi is quoted as saying

“I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made,” Pelosi said. Some of the people hearing the message “are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume,” she said.

Pelosi also is quoted as stating

“Our country is great because people can say what they think and they believe,” she added. “But I also think that they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause.”

The USA is great, in part, due to the rights given to the citizens, including the First Amendment Right to Free Speech (limited to time, place, etc.).

What I have a problem with is

take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause…

What does this mean, exactly?

If I say I am opposed to (fill in your issue here), am I responsible for “incitement” if someone goes out and kills someone associated with said issue?

Personal responsibility

A certain Senator is responsible for yelling, “You lie!” to President Obama. No doubt he should have refrained from said outburst.

Why do we not hold those who act responsible for their actions if they are mentally competent? Why do we hold others responsible for another person’s actions?

Disruptions

Pelosi has spoken about “disruptions” at town hall meetings regarding healthcare, and she stated, as reported in USA Today, that

These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.

She made these comments at a Town Hall Meeting in San Fransisco on January 17, 2006–when George Bush was in the White House…

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so I will provide you with a video…

Simon Scowl, at deciever.com, has an article on her double-standard or her change in opinion

Then: “I’m a fan of disruptors. Nothing could be more American.”
Now: “Disruptors are simply un-American.”

Then: “I understand your anger.”
Now: “I can’t stand your anger.”

Then: “Shout it out.”
Now: “Shut it up.”

Presumably Pelosi knows what cameras are, and that they were being aimed at her during this event. Did she think nobody would dig this up? Did she think she wouldn’t have to eat her own words? Did she think?

Summary

We should support the First Amendment Right to speak up and state your opinion, regardless of the opinion. Your Freedom of Speech is not limited by your position on the matter–for or against. Rather, you have the Right of Free Speech that is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Your “democratic,” “republican,” or other viewpoint is irrelevant to whether or not you have the right to speak.

We are all individuals who will hold different values. To assume, for an instant, that my values are, somehow, more “right” than your values means I am not representing you and think I am never in the wrong–this is dangerous thinking.

I am sure Hitler did not march on Poland and start killing Jews and Homosexuals because he thought he was wrong. We have to limit making ‘our’ actions “right” and ‘their’ actions “wrong” simply because they are ‘our’ or ‘their’ opinions.

Opinions are like votes–all citizens are entitled to have one.

However, I hope we have empathy to grasp the issues on both sides of the chamber. If we don’t, where is the Change that we were promised?

I support the President of the USA (democrat or republican) because he/she is elected by the people (electoral college, actually). I may oppose certain policy and proposed laws, but that is what being a citizen of the USA is all about.

Freedom, and the support of the right of others who have the same freedom I do even if their opinion differs from mine.

Isn’t it?

We are entitled to health care.

We are entitled to any medical procedure that might be required to save our lives–cost be damed!

We are entitled to a job with a nice salary.

We are entitled to our flat-screen television…

Why does everyone feel entitled to all of this?

I don’t mind giving people things, and I wish we all had great medical insurance. My suggestion was to give every USA citizen the same health-care and retirement options as federal workers–if they deserve it, so do we.

If that option isn’t economically feasible, why do we offer it at all? It isn’t that I am “cold” or “evil,” nothing can operate on a negative cash flow. While we certainly have been for a while, it appears that we are having to answer for that spending.

If we keep spending what we don’t have, it will be worse for everyone when we have to pay the piper… The bill will come due, of that we can all be sure.

Too much russian spam. Until I find a better SPAM filter, I have turned off commenting.

Google Books, Google’s digitizing of all books, has a settlement offer from those that argue that Google has violated Copyright law.

Why would I oppose a settlement?
There are supporters and opponents to the settlement.  The AP has a good article describing the issues.  Give it a good read.

Here is what bothers me a bit.  The Settlement Agreement states

3.5   Right to Remove or Exclude.

(a)(i) Right to Remove. A Rightsholder of a Book may direct that his, her or its Book be Removed. If a Book has not yet been Digitized when Google receives a Removal request for that Book, Google will use reasonable efforts not to Digitize that Book, but, in any event, will comply with the request to Remove.

Google will implement a Rightsholder’s Removal direction within thirty (30) days after notice from the Registry. A Fully Participating Library will implement a Rightsholder’s Removal direction within ninety (90) days after notice from the Registry.

…

(iii) Limitations on Right to Remove. The right to Remove under
Section 3.5(a)(i) (Right to Remove) is limited to requests made within twentyseven (27) months from the Notice Commencement Date. Thereafter, requests will be honored only to the extent that the Books have not yet been Digitized as of the date the request is made; if the Books at issue have already been Digitized, the Rightsholder may request exclusion from particular Display Uses (under Section 3.5(b)(i) (Right to Exclude)) but not Removal (under Section 3.5(a)(i) (Right to Remove)).

I don’t get that.  If the Copyright holder owns the copyright, why should Google be able to make and keep a copy of the book without paying any required fee?

If Google is able to do this to use the copied work for their own purposes, why can’t I?  Or you?  Or anyone else?  Why does it appear as if Google gets to “step outside the law” and get treated differently just because of a settlement?

I dislike settlements with the Government

Settlements seem to give people more rights than they would otherwise get in a legal proceeding that was open and not “private.”  Many settlement agreements are “closed” and information about them is not disclosed…  How does this serve justice?

Allowing Google to keep a copy, digital or otherwise, of a copyrighted book, how are they subject to the Copyright Law?  Again, why is there a treatment for “big” (Google) rather than “small” (the rest of us)?

One law for them all…

Members of Congress fail to report income and simply pay the tax owed–sometimes without penalties or interest.  How does this happen?  “Big” vs. “small.”

The Courts should end this unjust enrichment by Google and the trampling of the Copyright holders rights under the law.  Agreeing to the settlement may mean that the writers (Copyright holders) lose the ability to control the copies of their works…

As to why libraries should have the ability to allow duplication of a protected work is beyond me…

What say you?

Wow…

Not much I can say but he shouldn’t have yelled that at that time…

I am not sure saying that ever helps your position, regardless of whether you are arguing, do you ever like being told, “You Lie?”

Remember, be honest.

Why do people keep insisting the Health Care Plan may cover Illegal Aliens?

Let me explain…

The House Bill does state nothing in the Bill is supposed to make payments to illegal aliens.

The exact language is

SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

Great! Argument closed, right?

Not so fast…

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, passed in 1986, requires emergency rooms have to treat all who enter, regardless of their ability to pay SO LONG AS there is an emergency medical issue…

What is an “emergency?”  MSN has a post that states

According to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), an emergency medical condition means:

(A) a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in:

- placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy

- serious impairment to bodily functions, or

- serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part; or

(B) with respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions:

- that there is inadequate time to make a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or

- that transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or the unborn child.

Interesting…

Furthermore, the Act, according to Wikipedia, specifies that

Examination and treatment cannot be delayed to inquire about methods of payment or insurance coverage, or a patient’s citizenship or legal status.

What does this all mean?

If the Hospital can’t ask if they are a citizen, how do we know payments won’t be made for those not legal residents of the USA?  How can we track this information?  How can we prevent anyone who is not a citizen from getting their medical coverage under the proposed plan?

We would, in effect, have to alter the language of the an existing law so that people could ask and document citizenship and legal residency status.  It does not mean that ERs would not be required to still provide treatement, but we would be able to assure ourselves that the public health insurance system would not be paying for those procedures.

Of course, I don’t understand why private hospitals should be required to provide those services if the government isn’t going to pay for them.  Seems that is a double standard…

Illegal Aliens are already treated in USA Emergency Rooms, and their children born in the USA become USA citizens.

What is left unsaid is that the ER is often not paid for those medical services, and the Hospital, like any other firm or government, can not continue to operate in with a negative cash flow…

They must obtain payment from others or raise their fees to make sure they are not always negative due to a Federal Law that says they MUST provide emergency medical coverage to anyone, regardless of their citizenship or their ability to pay.

Let that sink in for a moment.

I want everyone to have coverage and be safe, but I understand that we can’t get any medical procedure we want or cover everyone because WE still have to pay for the coverage and the procedures. It matters not that you don’t write a check when you get the procedure because you write a check to the USA government when you pay your taxes.

If you don’t pay taxes, someone else is paying for your coverage… Before you get too happy, remember what happens when the government runs out of money for any particular item…

The “front lawn” in DC is full of weeds and has a broken irrigation system. The people in charge of the Vietnam Memorial are spending $96,000.00 to fix a broken irrigation system and to remove weeds and “fix” the lawn.

This is the government we trust to run Social Security, Medicare, and the VA… According to CBS,

For Medicare, the threshold when benefits exceed program income occurred last year. For Social Security, that threshold will be crossed in 2017, one year earlier than the 2018 date projected in last year’s report.

There are legal requirements for the USA government to provide funding, but we don’t know what funding will have to be provided to keep Social Security operating. Will it be 1 Billion or 3 Trillion? Forecasting, as we have all seen, is difficult to do accurately.

What we need to do is:

1.  Get out of debt - do this by living in a frugal manner and by not spending on “wants.”

2.  Put 10% of your net income into retirement accounts - whether cash, bonds, stocks, a mix, etc.

Other than that, there is very little you can do, so you might as well do what you can.

Ask yourself if living “large” now is better than living in any decency later.  Of course, I am not sure that works with us in the USA since we appear to be all about NOW and not about any long term plan…

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

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

What is your perception?

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

Right?

Maybe not…

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

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

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

Say What?!

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

You are saying, “That is not hot!”

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

Our average temperatures might be 10 Degrees Centigrade warmer!

Our average temperatures might be 18 Degrees Fahrenheit warmer!

Calm…

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

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

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

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

Don’t think so? Just wait…