Media Bias

I won't bullshit here - media bias is a real thing. And not just in Fox News. It'd be impossible to enforce a rule that the media must report without bias. The media can happily have whatever bias they please. They can do this overtly, or covertly through more subtle means, such as choosing what to report on, or choices of words used when reporting. However, they generally are not allowed to outright lie, else they do risk legal consequences - libel and the like.

The more often complained about bias is that of the "liberal media." I have seen some things to support such a claim, although it's often debatable as to whether it's actual bias, or simply trolling for ratings. Or sometimes, such perceived bias is actually a sense of common decency. People who think of war as a feel-good family show aren't going to want to see pictures of the actual carnage and destruction, along with the very human faces of those suffering the most from it. Therefore, news stories such as that might be painted as having a liberal bias, as many of today's conservatives choose to see the "enemies" as less than human.

Nonetheless, the media bias in this election cycle, as well as the accusations of such, have been amusing to say the least. Quoting Romney is now "liberal bias" coming from the media. One wouldn't expect that from a supposedly conservative candidate, but hey - I'm just a know-nothing know-it-all hack with a blog. What do I know?

On the other hand, we have everyone's favorite, Fox News! They're fair and balanced. It says so right in their logo, so it has to be true. I was watching them scramble on their website to fact check and somehow discredit Obama. I also heard that Fox News is blaming Romney's loss of the debate on the audience. Aren't they the ones the debate is supposed to be about? I haven't found mention of this on the Fox News website, though.

One thing that just rubs me wrong, though. Romney's opportunism as far as the Libya thing. First of all, it's never right to use a tragedy for political gain. This is why I was pissed off at Bush well before the 2004 election came. Anyway, the complaint didn't even have real substance to it - there was so much made of whether or not Obama labeled it as a terror attack fast enough. First of all, yes, he did do so in that speech in the rose garden, although Fox News says that's debatable.

Next, though... what the fuck does it matter? Seriously. People were killed. Does calling it a terrorist attack make them any less dead? It seems like Romney's camp is doing its best to harp on about gestures. Personally, I like my leaders to be more concerned with action rather than getting in a pissing contest over who feels more tragic anguish over such a thing.

But, maybe it's the best the Romney camp has to offer. "Gee, I won't get anything done, but I'll sure do my best to convince you that I cry myself to sleep over it!"

Obama's Change of Heart

I'm not exactly Obama's biggest fan, but I don't hate the guy, either. With this, I'm fairly honest and objective about my thoughts on the guy. Today, I woke up to this: Obama finally voices support for same-sex marriage.

I am something of a cynic, and being that it took him until campaign season to come out and actually support same-sex marriage as opposed to taking the politically-correct toned down liberal position of supporting civil unions but not marriage, I do believe that at least half of his announced change in stance has to do with politics.

However, he does give good arguments as to why he changed his stance. In the above-linked article, he says that he noticed his kids simply couldn't understand why same-sex couples couldn't have the same rights. Makes sense to me. Kids tend to see things much more simply, and Occam's Razor - the simplest solution is usually the right one.

But ultimately, what does it matter? I'd like to believe that his reasoning is genuine, but as long as he backs it up in policy, what does it matter as to why he is doing it? American politics really are an extension of American capitalism - the one who is most willing to give the voters what they want is the one most likely to get elected. But, I will be watching Obama nonetheless to make sure his support is more than the all-too-typical pretty words to get votes.

Obamacare

Like the Supreme Court justice, I won't pretend that I've read it - it's 2,700 pages long, and not exactly entertaining. Like most bills, it's probably unnecessarily lengthy, but contrary to how some are talking, it's again nothing new. Sometimes it's likely because a bill does cover a lot of subject matter, and every loophole needs to be closed, and sometimes it's for a more nefarious purpose - to discourage anyone (including congress) from reading much of anything beyond the title, as is my suspicion with the Patriot Act.

Of course, neither side is immune to using such tactics. At any rate, for those who have forgotten, Obamacare is not the bill's actual name - it's the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Here's a fourteen page summary. It's kinda surprising that Fox News' propaganda against it has gotten so popular as to make even supporters of the bill forget its actual name, although "Obamacare" really doesn't sound too terribly negative, despite attempts to make it into a dirty word.

The main thing that makes me wary is a mandate. Sometimes care simply isn't affordable, even if it's on a sliding scale. Yes, you can file for free care... but anyone who has ever filed for government benefits knows it takes a very long time... and in the meantime, you're still getting fined for not having said benefits.

Otherwise though, I like it. I like that it bans disqualification over "pre-existing conditions." Call me anti-capitalist for that if you like, but seriously - cancer won't go away just because you lost your job and the benefits that go with it. Should money, or blind luck in not being laid off from a job, be such a strong deciding factor in life-or-death decisions? I like that it makes healthcare available to all Americans.

I've noticed that those who protest it the most strongly are the same ones who, if asked why they dislike it, they'll provide answers such as "it's un-American," or "it's socialist." Good luck finding people that can actually point to specific parts and reasons for the dislike - they dislike it because Obama came up with it. They dislike it because someone with a loud voice who pretends to be more knowledgeable than most told them to dislike it.

Hacks With Blogs

I just got done watching Contagion and loved it. I liked the realistic and human portrayal of everyone involved, from the governments, the WHO, the CDC, and the individual doctors and epidemiologists. Spoiler alert - if you haven't seen it yet, there may be a few spoilers in this post.

The other thing I found refreshing in it was that it just may be the only movie I've seen that involves a major (fictional) epidemic that wasn't the result of some vast government/shadow organization conspiracy. While yes, I love stories such as Outbreak, the Stand, and the Andromeda Strain, each one of them involves government conspiracy on some level. With this, it's easy to forget that most viruses and bacteria indeed have their origins in nature.

It's often the same story - some deadly disease gets out. Turns out the disease has origins as a potential bio-weapon being studied by the government. Then some ambitious blogger investigative reporter exposes it all and saves the day. As for Andromeda Strain, it would be the more recent re-make of the movie that follows that unfortunate cliche, rather than the book I linked to above.

In Contagion though, it followed a more realistic pattern of events. The WHO, CDC, and others banded together to try and stop it. Of course, every such organization is made up of humans. Humans who have human fears and concerns... and families. Then of course there is the blogger who millions see as a hero.

For some reasons, a lot of people trust relatively anonymous (even if they use their real names) bloggers over actual politicians and reporters who have some accountability. Maybe it's because we're so used to depictions of masked heroes of the people. Surely, a blogger doesn't have any ulterior motives, right?

Well, my ulterior motive is a black Dodge Challenger, dammit! Of course, that doesn't mean that I'm getting one by blogging about anything and everything that comes to mind. Of course, I'm not actually expecting to get one from this, either. The point is that yes, even bloggers are human and have human motivations and the like. With that, we are held at near-zero accountability. Go ahead, set a blog up yourself. Anyone and everyone can. There's no real verification of one's identity who does set up a blog. You could say you're some Deep Throat type of government insider when the reality is that you're just making fries at some fast food joint while you live in your mom's basement. I could tell you that the sky is actually pink and purple plaid, but that there's a mind-control government conspiracy to make us think it's blue... and there would be no real repercussions on my end. The blogger in Contagion faked being sick to peddle a miracle cure the governments were supposedly withholding. The blogger got rich. People panicked. People got killed. But hey, he got rich because they trusted his talk of conspiracies.

Seeing this lack of accountability (and often truth) is a big part of why I started blogging. I rather hoped I could offer an alternative. As for me getting rich... not bloody likely. I'll keep shamelessly pandering to Dodge for a Challenger, mostly in jest, until I can afford one... but the only money I make on this blog is from those little ads on here. Not the links I post to Dodge or Amazon or where ever else, but just those Google ads.

So again, I try to post things that can be fact-checked, and I do try to keep honest. On the rare and unlikely occasion that I get access to an inside source (as I did in regards to Zombie Muhammad), I try to check on their reliability and see how the facts I'm provided fill in the gaps in what everyone else is told. In other words, I try to keep things honest. I have little, if any, reason to do otherwise.

Derogatory Words

This may seem a strange thing to do a post on, but it's seeming to become more relevant. We've all probably heard the term "politically correct," and probably don't think very highly of things that fall under that label.

There are times when political correctness does become ridiculous. I've heard of cases where hate groups instead become labeled as "unhappy groups" in the guise of political correctness.

On the other hand, there are words that really are best to be treated as curse words. To name a few examples (only as examples of such words, don't take offense) - niggers, kikes, chinks, crackers, wetbacks, and several others. Those were terms that were made up exclusively as insults with no technical relevance or benevolent intention. So those I am all for treating as swear words, and in general discourage the use of, except in proper context in theater and writing (keep history in mind - I don't support the N-word having been edited out of Mark Twain's work) and of course in giving examples (lest I make myself a hypocrite).

But, we have another category here - what about technical words that have become insults?

Campaign to treat "retarded" as a swear word.

Unofficially, said word has been treated as a swear word or insult for decades now. But there was a time that it was the proper technical word for a condition. The dictionary definitions can be found here. Basically, it means "delayed" or "slowed down." Now government documents use such terms as intellectually disabled, other organizations take it a step further and say "differently-abled." I'm not against terminology changing, although I think "differently-abled" is a bit... hmm... flowery? I'm all for treating people with disabilities with dignity and respect, but there are of course those who take offense at it being labeled as a disability. It does affect the quality of one's life and inhibits independence, so by definition, it is a disability.

I don't know... I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, the more sentimental part of me supports this effort. I can understand how it may make people feel for a descriptive term of themselves to be used as an insult. On the other hand, the more technical part of my mind says that this word shouldn't fall into the ranks of the racial slurs and insults, even if it unofficially has. Let it be one of those things where the more intelligent/enlightened ones keep the true meaning of the word in mind. Keep in mind that there have been similar efforts on this same issue. Remember how "special" became such a loaded word?

Thoughts, anyone?

This is a graphic from an old MAD magazine in regards to prejudice and inequality:

Stay tuned, my minions...

I recently came upon what will soon be breaking news from an anonymous inside source. While I hadn't planned on this happening when I first imagined having this blog, I am finding it to be an exciting experience. I suppose that sometimes, we aren't aware of the connections we have, or of the ones quietly following our work.

Seems there is a situation that's made the news, and has set all kinds of commentators and bloggers afire... but it is apparently not at all what it seems. I won't tell you more about this just yet, as it is late and unlike some other hacks commentators, I'm actually trying to work for a living.

Here's what you've probably already heard or read:

Pennsylvania judge dismisses charges against Muslim who attacked atheist.

Needless to say, there is more to the story... and trusting my source, the facts being reported are more than a little skewed. So, my tender lumplings... stay tuned - my next post, most likely within twenty-four hours, will have details.

Awww...

Such a pity... Rush Limbaugh chose not to heed my advice:

Rush Limbaugh, afraid of losing too much money (and thus losing his spot on the radio waves), apologizes to Sandra Fluke.

Ah well... This is Rush Limbaugh we're talking about. It's not a matter of "if," but "when" he puts his foot in his mouth yet again. And the thing is that only a fool would believe his apology to her is sincere. His apology in truth is not to her, but to his advertisers that effectively sign his paycheck. For those of you boycotting his advertisers, I'd really recommend you continue this boycott.

He said it was an attempt at humor. This might be believable if he'd only insulted her on one occasion. He didn't. He had previous opportunities to apologize, and he responded by insulting her again, along with laughing at those who took offense. Yeah, he saw humor in it, no doubt. But not the type of humor you get from say, watching American Pie or going to a comedy club or something like that. It's the type of humor a bully finds in shoving a seemingly weaker kid's face into a toilet. And his apology is the same as when that bully is faced with going to a boot camp for juvenile delinquents.

You see, Limbaugh is afraid of real work... for all his hawking in talking about people mooching off the system and not wanting to find real work, radio is all he has. He doesn't have any college degree. In his mother's words, "he flunked out of everything," and "didn't seem interested in anything except radio." Not only that, but he managed to skip out on the Vietnam draft, on account of an ingrown ass hair.

He will bluster and bloviate, but when confronted with losing his advertisers, and thus losing his job... well, he makes lame excuses. But not before digging himself in much deeper, of course.

Like I said, I don't buy his apology even for a second. Regardless of who he overtly addressed in the apology, it was in reality made only to and because of his advertisers. So, for now at least, we're stuck with the oxycodone-addicted hypocritical blowhard misogynist chicken hawk.

The Wit and Wisdom of Rush Limbaugh

With a title like this, I'm tempted to leave this post blank to make my point. But... oh, what the hell! I just can't resist!

Oh Rushy, Rushy, Rushy... what are you getting yourself into? I guess I shouldn't be surprised, him having coined the term "feminazi." Now, I won't say this term is all bad... but horribly over used. I've known some "feminists" who believe that all men are evil and should die in a fire... or worse, if they can think of it. I wouldn't argue about the term "feminazi" being applied to them. To me, real feminism is about equality, not superiority. Let's see... if hating women is called misogyny, what would hating men be called? Misandry? Looked it up, and that apparently is the proper term, but not one I've ever actually heard being used. My spell-checker didn't recognize it, but it did recognize "misogyny." Reflective of society's double standards toward the issue too, I suppose. Society is rather accepting of bashing men and taking it in stride... but if the same things were said about women that are said about men... forget about it.

For those who haven't seen the news, I give you:

-Limbaugh calls Sandra Fluke, birth control advocate, a slut.

-Limbaugh dismisses Danica Patrick, race car driver, as a woman driver over her support of birth control measure.

-Limbaugh, unrepentant of calling her a slut, suggests Fluke make online sex videos.

At this point, advertisers are distancing themselves from him.You'd think that he'd be scrambling to save face at this point. That after making not one, not two, but at least three misogynist comments in regards to the same issue, he'd be meekly making some kind of apology.

Nope, not this conservative megalomaniac:

Limbaugh thinks it's "hilarious."

Many are calling on him to stop and to apologize. Me, I encourage him to keep on going. Why? Because I don't like the guy. He's a figurehead for what I don't like about the side I disagree with. He's one I'm glad I don't have on my side. So by all means - Rush, if you're reading this, keep with those misogynist comments! You'll show 'em!

Update on the Lunch Police Thing

So, it seems there are going to be more than a few people that are going to be rather red-faced about this whole thing. For my own part, I do try to bring reliable information, but as mentioned in yesterday's post, this becomes difficult when people are so fired up about one issue. Turns out that this was stupidity on the teacher's part:

Oops... teacher's bad.

I believe I did mention the possibility that this was a miscommunication. And understandably, people expect teachers to be knowledgeable. But after all, keep in mind that this is all second-hand information from a four year old, and like I said in my previous post on this issue, one can't expect a four year old to draw fine distinctions. From her point of view, it may as well have been the schoolyard bully taking her lunch. And her point of view is right.

But it turns out that all that should have been done is that the kid was offered some milk. While the cheese on her sandwich realistically does amount to dairy, I'm not sure how much dairy it amounts to... or it simply could have been forgotten. Good ol' cheese is easy to forget about on a sandwich.

Still not sure how comfortable I am with the fact that home-brought lunches are being inspected. Like I said yesterday, if a parent cares enough to pack a lunch, they usually care enough to make an effort toward nutrition.

Auto Industry Bailouts

I've been a consistent, albeit reluctant, supporter of the auto industry bailouts. There are a variety of reasons, some of which include being able to compete with the market for foreign vehicles, the fear of mass unemployment of auto industry workers in America, things like that. For or against the bailouts, one would have to admit that there are positive results... though that won't stop some people from continuing to deny this fact.

Auto industry (and Michigan's economy) making a comeback.

I've heard people screaming that this was all done for the unions, that the unions now own the companies. Well, whatever the case be now, it seems to be working... and this coming from someone who doesn't always like unions, someone who supports the Employee Rights Act, much thanks to my own negative experiences with a union.

Yes, I was pissed about the bailouts being necessary. I still remember when the execs spent several thousands to board their private jets and stay in luxury accommodations in Washington to go ask congress for a bailout. Yeah, I was pissed... and while I'm not certain it wasn't counter-productive for congress to send them back home and tell them to come back via more humble means, I'm sure it's what many were thinking. Very simply, if you are running low on money, save it where you can. It's common sense for most of us.

Myself being in the market for a new car hopefully in the near future, I was actually inclined toward a Ford Mustang. After all, who doesn't love those cars? I've often said that my dream car was a '65 Mustang. For a time, the bailouts kind of cemented that with me, as Ford was the only company who didn't take one. I also liked that they were bringing back the muscle car look. While Mustangs to my knowledge have always been a muscle car, they kind of lost the look for awhile, I think.

But, I saw that other American car manufacturers were also stepping up their game. I loved the Dodge Charger, then in researching that, I learned about my more contemporary dream car, the Dodge Challenger. Are you getting this, Dodge? BLACK. DODGE. CHALLENGER. Dammit. Ah well, to each their own. It's all good ol' American muscle.

The point is that good things have come from those auto industry bailouts. A lot of people like to pin it all on Obama, naming it an example of his socialist agenda. Let's not forget though that it was George "Dubya" Bush that got the ball rolling on these, and he said he'd do it again. Looking at the seeming success of these bailouts, it's almost like watching that once-irresponsible kid finally graduating college with a good degree. Let's hope this apparent success continues.

The Prodigal Sons Return

Were I one of the more cocky bloggers, or say... Rush Limbaugh, I would be telling you all to bow to my prophet-like powers of prediction. But I'm not all that cocky. Just cocky enough to have a blog and assume that a few people might actually be interested in it. Oh, and to do shameless plugs for a black Dodge Challenger that I so desperately want. But that's another story.

But, it seems that some companies are starting to see the folly of outsourcing that I've been preaching about: Manufacturers getting homesick.

In the story, the manufacturers talk more about logistics and the like, which sadly is probably a big part of this. It kinda depresses me that it still just comes down to the bottom line, and I'm not sure this quote makes me feel much better about it: "...we underestimated in some cases the value of our workers back here." Hmm... underestimated in "some" cases? No... what they did was completely screw over the ones whom their companies were built on.

Nonetheless, I am glad to see this happening, although it's only a start. Not all companies are doing this, and let's not forget that the article only names manufacturers. It doesn't mention, for instance, call centers. I do think though that such a move should be strongly encouraged and that measures should be put in place to strongly discourage another such exodus.

Some companies are now complaining that they are having a hard time finding qualified workers, though. Again, I largely suspect that this is where the companies have shot themselves in the foot. You saw several people with good, practical degrees having them go to waste when companies started shipping overseas. With that, people started going for different degrees or certifications. Ones that might actually get them a job, although with often significantly less pay than one of the degrees in question would have made for them, if such jobs were available.

To the people, I say this: the first go-around in college, get a useful, practical degree or certification. You can get your liberal arts degrees and the like later, or just independently study it and not pay thousands for it. Meanwhile, it'll hopefully save you from having to work fast food, retail, customer service... that sort of thing. Believe me when I tell you that such professions, with few exceptions, are not fun. By few exceptions, I refer to those where such things are part of your specialty - like mechanics will have to give some customer service, pharmacies are kind of specialized retail, that sort of thing.

To the corporations, I say this: never underestimate the value of the workers who have built you up to where you are and kept you there. Never screw them over just for the sake of your bottom line. They are the ones who do the hard work. And while you may sign their paychecks, they are the ones who give you yours. If you haven't yet, you may do well to watch National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. Or perhaps Mr. Deeds with its question, "what would your child self think of your adult self?" When asked in the movie, many of the rich shareholders and the like came to the conclusion that their child selves would kick their adult selves' asses. In our youth, we all wanted to be heroes. Why has that ideal died in so many adults?

Stem Cell Research

Embryonic stem cell research is one of those issues where almost everyone thinks they know more than they actually do. The common perception seems to be that the stem cells come from aborted fetuses. With this, pro-lifers are kind of alienated from supporting the research while pro-choicers figure it's at least some good that comes out of abortion.

But, as it often is, the common perception is wrong. Embryonic stem cells do not come from aborted fetuses. There is, in fact, a difference between a fetus and an embryo - fetuses are at a much later stage of development. The embryos used in embryonic stem cell research are at their earliest stage of development. So early in fact that they haven't even seen the inside of a womb. You see, these embryos are leftovers from in vitro fertilization clinics. Eggs that were fertilized in a test tube or petri dishes, or something along those lines.

When these fertilization clinics do their thing, they fertilize a few eggs, then they implant only the most viable embryos - at this point what's known as a blastocyst. Between 50 - 250 cells generally make up the whole thing. So, what happens to the rest? Well, the couple can opt to preserve them for possible later use, but that's expensive. They can also opt to give them to other hopeful mothers to be, if any are in need of them. More often than not though, these embryos are simply disposed of like a prom night dumpster baby. Or, they can also (if current laws allow it) opt to donate them to stem cell research.

Stem cell research does have a lot of potential, and contrary to what some nay-sayers say ("nay"), there have been results. Mostly in using one's own (or a close relative's) stem cells. This is likely simply because there have been so many roadblocks in embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells are more desirable because they have more potential to adapt. The thing is that if you put an embryonic stem cell in with another cluster of cells, it generally will take on the properties of its surrounding cells.

Stop and think about this. You know all that stuff that can't heal or be replaced? This can change. Rather than waiting and likely dying while waiting on transplant lists, a new organ can be grown. One in which you don't need to take immunosuppressants for the rest of your life to prevent your body from rejecting said organ. Maybe this can also help repair spinal cords, maybe this can also cure or more effectively treat autoimmune disorders. Use your imagination, it's all being looked at.

As always, I encourage you to do your own research. Then come to your own conclusions based on your research rather than letting someone else do your thinking for you.

This post done, I leave you with the Prom Night Dumpster Babies!

Conspiracy Theories

I've mentioned early on that I have a strong distaste for conspiracy theories. They make people scared, and people do dumb things when they are scared. An extreme example would be the holocaust in Nazi Germany. The Jewish people have been the scapegoats throughout much of their history. I know of one Jewish person who summed up the Jewish holidays as, "they tried to kill us, we won, let's eat." Hitler was successful in blaming a Jewish conspiracy for all the world's problems, and with that... well, you know the rest.

I'd actually be really amused by many conspiracy theories if not for the dangers they presented. I've heard of one where the world is supposedly run by reptilian Illuminati shape-shifters from outer space. I've heard of chem trails - the theory that the trails some jets leave behind are chemicals aimed at eventually exterminating the human race, or that they are from the government doing secret experiments on us to see what happens when we're exposed to various chemical or biological agents. Then there's the theories about HAARP... the belief that this project secretly controls the weather and such like. More well known are the theories that 9/11 was an inside job, that Obama is a Muslim and not a US born citizen, and the still-enduring theories about the Jews trying to take over the world.

Don't misunderstand me - I am aware that the government has done some pretty shitty things, and that there have been some pretty scary real life conspiracies - the Tuskegee experiment, MK-ULTRA, Operation Northwoods, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, STD experiments in Guatemala, and several others.

What I do ask however is that people question everything, including those who tell them to question everything. Just because someone comes up with a neat, dramatic, and scary sounding conspiracy theory doesn't make it true. Look at actual evidence. Don't just trust someone's word that it came from an insider. Look at science. Look at motivation. 

If someone tells you not to trust the mainstream media, ask why. The mainstream media, while far from perfect, at least has accountability. They can be biased, they can choose to report... but if they tell an outright lie, they can be held accountable. Us hacks with blogs though are another matter. I could tell you the sky is actually pink with purple polka-dots, but MK-ULTRA has us thinking it's blue... and no one could do anything about it, because 1) I have such a small fan-base as it stands (although strangely, this blog gets almost as many hits from Russia as it does from the US), 2) I'm fairly anonymous, 3) I'm probably dirt poor and therefore not worth suing, and 4) I don't claim to be the news.

The thing is that the internet does put all kinds of info at our fingertips, but a lot of it is false information. Make sure the information you get is from a reliable source, or can actually be backed up from a reliable source. Know the difference between news and commentary/opinion. And seriously, question everyone - especially those who tell you to question everyone.

State of the Union

I don't really plan on watching the State of the Union - I almost never do. But, I can generally predict what the main focal point is. This one will be damage control, and probably more than a little campaigning for re-election. The traditional State of the Union address seems almost pointless. It seems more than anything like a chance to put a positive spin on the happenings of the year in question. Kind of like a performance review at your job... if you did your own performance reviews.

One of the biggest focuses I think will be to put a positive spin on the economy. Now, despite what either party says, it took more than one president to fuck that up. Clinton had a big part in it, Bush Jr. took Clinton's ideas and ran with them, and Obama... I guess he's trying, but he's not really getting it right. It would take one cocky bastard of a president though to fix the damage already done, and the damage that will continue to happen if several groups/businesses/lobbyists/politicians have their ways.

Everyone has an agenda of some type, and most are rather self-serving. I was hearing from a consultant that one of the first questions they are asked is how to outsource... how to move operations overseas. I've explained how this is self-destructive in a previous post, but let's review. The more jobs that are moved overseas, the less money Americans have to spend. If Americans aren't spending money, then businesses in America aren't making money. It's that simple. It looks great on short term profit reports, but such things fail to take in the big picture.

There is also the fact that unemployment numbers are artificially going down. If you were laid off and couldn't find a job by the time your unemployment benefits ran out, you are not counted as unemployed. I'm not sure that would be the same as saying you're employed, just that you don't exist as far as these stats are concerned. A rather biased article on the subject

Of course, that's not to say such artificial inflation of the economy is anything new. Remember Bush's hazy definition of manufacturing jobs?

The news isn't all bad, though. It was recently announced that GM topped all other automakers in the world for sales. It's nice to see an American brand doing this. While I have mixed feelings about the bailouts, it does seem like the automakers have made good use of this. Hell, for my own part, I'm really wanting to get a Dodge Challenger when I can afford one. Figure, that nice classic muscle car look, and all that horsepower... go for a nice sleek, black color. That's a different story, though. Of course, if Dodge wants to give me a free one for the plug...

Anyway, it's just not easy to get excited about a State of the Union address. I think that right now, people just aren't feeling all that optimistic. We've been told that things are rough but getting better for over a decade now. I think it's safe to say that Americans as a whole just want results now.

Well, that concludes the "Raven" State of the Union. You're welcome.

Gingrich and the Republican Primaries

I am, as one can probably imagine, paying at least passing attention to the Republican primaries... as I'm sure everyone is. Republicans want to know who they think will replace Obama, and Democrats are curious who they'll be up against. That's not to say I'm watching the debates. I'm fine with just reading the highlights in the aftermath. They are all politicians, none of them really doing anything to stand out for me... well, not in a good way, at least.

Today, I think I'll mostly be pitching a bitch about Newt Gingrich... one of the biggest hypocrites in Washington. When asked about his affairs in a debate, he went off at the moderator who asked. While perhaps normally, I'd say everyone has a few skeletons in their closets and should be allowed to forget about them once in awhile, I would say that this is not the case with Gingrich. Am I holding a double standard here? I don't think so. Here's why:

Gingrich so far has had at least three extramarital affairs... that we know of. It seems like each time he asks for a divorce, it's when his soon-to-be ex-wife is sick. This is the same guy who led the charge against Bill Clinton on Capitol Hill for having his affair with Lewinsky. He spent millions of taxpayer dollars investigating Clinton for lying under oath when he shouldn't have even been under oath. An affair is a civil, not a criminal, matter. You know how a case gets thrown out when cops find something under illegal circumstances? Ie, searching without a warrant and the like? Well, they were trying to bust Clinton for perjury on, again, something he should not have even been put under oath for. He would have been well within his rights to laugh and flip them the bird when they tried to put him under oath. The affair was, by all accounts, consensual... and not even Hillary was asking for the investigation.

That's not to say I'm a huge fan of Clinton... he's the one that brought in NAFTA, which I think is stupidity. Letting foreign policy dictate economic policy is just stupid, and part of the reason we're in our current mess. Back to Gingrich, though.

What makes him a hypocrite is that while leading this moral crusade against Clinton, Gingrich himself was having an affair. That's why I don't feel mine is a double standard. If he can't even hold to his own morals, do we really want to entrust him with the highest office in the land and the Constitution? I sure the hell do not.

Gingrich is bitterly partisan, a liar, and a hypocrite. Much like a number of the kings of old that our founders fought and died to escape, he holds himself above his own laws. I'd say he deserves everything he gets - every bit of ridicule, every reminder that he's presented with. I'm sorry to say, but this is not a good guy. This is not one who attempts to learn from his mistakes, or apparently not one who even tries to be fair, just, or decent.

Back to the Republican race as a whole, it's reminding me of Kang and Kodos posing as Clinton and Dole on the Simpsons, running for president. They're all pretty much the same to me, and if this is the best the Republican party can present... well, hope they're ready for Obama having a second term.

More on SOPA

Last night, I made a post about SOPA. Admittedly, it was kind of a last minute, "it's late and I'm tired" kind of job. While that post is certainly relevant, I think the issue warrants a little more attention. And, after some thought, I've decided I will not similarly "censor" this post.

Is it because my feelings have changed on the matter? No, I assure you that they haven't. The censored post is a good indicator of what we have to fear if this bill goes through. So it does illustrate a point for those who might be more apathetic toward this issue. However, it also alienates others who won't bother clicking to uncensor it.

I do thank the major websites that blackout in protest of SOPA, such as google, craigslist, wikipedia, and several others. It raises awareness in a big way. It lets the apathetic crowd know a startling reality - that this is what the internet could actually be like if some have their way.

A lot of people feel this may just be alarmist talk. Perhaps it is... after all, the Patriot Act for example hasn't brought about martial law... yet. But like the Patriot Act, it opens up a wide net. It is unconstitutional. There is no due process. Stay tuned kids, 'cause it's going to get scary.

SOPA was more or less written by lobbyists. The stated goal is to shut down international piracy websites. What does it define as such? That's where it gets murky.

Sites can be shut down on suspicion of piracy.

That's right. Like I said, no due process or anything. This blog could and likely would be shut down for any number of reasons. If they wanted to give a reason, it could be for linking to news stories and giving my own commentary on them. Or it could be done so because I'm seen as competition. But they don't even really have to have a reason. Perfect way to bully people out of business if they don't have resources for a legal battle.

Do you enjoy sites like Wikipedia? Fark? Non-mainstream news sites? Political blogs? Youtube? Social networking (eg, facebook, myspace, livejournal, etc)? Satirical sites? Well, those would all be in very real danger, should SOPA pass. Even something as broad as google might be in danger for not taking an active enough part in blocking stuff. And do you like open source software? Forget about that. I rather suspect that open source software is one of the biggest reasons that SOPA came about.

For those unaware, open source software is software that was created by geeks down on their luck. It started with Linus Torvalds. He had used Unix in college, and liked it quite a bit. He wanted to buy it, but couldn't afford the very hefty price tag it carried. Then he had a thought: he realized that he was, by trade/training, a computer programmer. So he started in creating his own version of it. Others, like-minded, joined in the making... adding stuff, taking stuff out, tweaking code. It became a big community project. The end result of this is what we now know as Linux. Similar to Unix in most of its workings, although now more user-friendly. Oh, and did I mention that it's free? That's the definition of open-source software - its source code is open to all, and free to all. Other popular open source programs are GIMP (image manipulation... Adobe hates this one), OpenOffice (a suite of office programs... Microsoft hates this one), and one you've probably all heard of - Mozilla Firefox (a web browser, and probably still the biggest competitor Microsoft's Internet Explorer has). Now, these programs may be similar, but they are not the same as the expensive programs they provide an alternative to. But that's really one of the big problems with SOPA. It allows these companies to censor their competitors who lack the funds for a legal battle. And if they complain that said programs are too similar, then they are hypocrites. Especially Microsoft, who took the idea of Windows® from Apple.

This is the reality we're faced with. This bill is being supported by those who have the funds to lobby for it and to put up extended legal battles with anyone who opposes them, and by politicians and others who really don't know much at all about the internet or how it works. It's opposed by all those who realize the very real dangers it has.

I urge you all to go to AmericanCensorship.org for more information about how you can participate and add your voice to the growing outrage.

Indoctrination in Public Schools

Back when I was in high school, for some idiot reason, PETA was allowed to set up shop in the hallway near the front office during lunch. Predictably, they were pushing off all their pamphlets, mostly trying to guilt people in to a total vegan diet. Me, being who I am, I would always double back to grab a burger or something in which meat was the main ingredient in that could easily be held in one hand while I browse the pamphlets talking about how meat is murder.

Being older and wiser now, I still grin ear to ear about that. But, I also find myself kind of irritated. I never saw anyone else being allowed to set up shop in the school hallways during lunch to present any kind of counterpoint. It was indoctrination. That PETA would do that doesn't surprise me - they have no ethics in how they get their message across. Show them the studies that plants do, indeed, feel pain too, and their smug little heads explode. Why though were they allowed to set up shop in a public school? Why were no opposing views doing the same?

I'm pretty certain that any conservatives reading this will be saying, "yup, that's what I'm talking about! Liberal propaganda is being forced into our children's minds. Indoctrination at public schools has gotta stop here and now!"

With that statement, "indoctrination has to stop," I fully agree. Why then, are so many Republicans forcing creationism into the curriculum of public schools? And universities? Creationism is not science. There is no scientific evidence to back it up. If it belongs in any curriculum in a public school, it would belong in one such as "Comparative Theology," Not something that teaches fact based on evidence.

Intelligent design also is not a compromise. Again, it is not based on fact or any kind of evidence, it is based on one religion trying to find some way to force their agenda into schools. So conservatives, guess what? It's still indoctrination, even if it's under your agenda.

This is something that people are being forced to learn, and being graded on for learning "correctly." It's being passed off as science, not for the theology it rightfully is, regardless of the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of the students.

Erosion of Liberties

In truth, this is nothing new. Liberties have been eroded or ignored since before the ink was dry on the Bill of Rights. Figure, slavery was rather contradictory to the Bill of rights, but it endured for decades after. Then we have workers' rights, women's rights, ending segregation, equal rights for gays... the list goes on.

It's undeniable that some significant gains have been made in this direction. Women can now vote, segregation is no longer institutionalized, and there are laws recognizing these things. Granted, the laws aren't always observed by everyone, but they are in place.

Just as gains are being made, we're taking losses in other areas. Perhaps most notably in privacy. It's no secret now that what we post online under our own names can come back and bite us in the ass. It's the same as if you stood on a soapbox in a large park to rant and rave. The only thing is that on the internet, the whole world is quite literally your audience. That can include law enforcement, the government, your employer, potential employers, etc. This is why I choose to blog anonymously. I don't want thoughts I post here to interfere with my life, nor do I want my life to interfere with how people interpret my thoughts. I am aware that if someone really wanted to, they could find out who I am, but I'm not going to worry excessively about that.

But let's move on from the obvious. I believe it was Benjamin Franklin that said "they that can give up essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither." That's exactly what we've been doing... giving up liberties for a feeling of some safety, especially since 9/11. When we see cops in movies that make their own rules, we treat them as heroes. We grant law enforcement more and more power. But what happens when they abuse it? In some areas in particular, with how much power they've already been given, it's increasingly difficult to take it back:

Seattle sues an attorney over request for dash cam video

The short of it is that an attorney in Seattle has requested a dash cam video of suspected police misconduct. These dash cam videos are supposedly public record, but Seattle has cited privacy rules. To me, this seems like a pretty clear case of retaliation. To add insult to injury, the city said that they don't have to release the video for three years... which is when the statute of limitations runs out for suing the city, and when those videos are routinely erased.

But, the modern day of erosion of liberties does not end there. Sad to say, much of it can be attributed to people wanting all the rights for themselves and fewer for those who disagree. Religion is one of the biggest culprits in this, I think. We hear often from over-zealous Christians about how their rights are being violated when they aren't allowed to force their beliefs on others in one way or another, and it seems increasingly obvious that Christianity is having a stronger hand in foreign policy, as well as in domestic policy. This is something that is popular with many, while others are afraid to even point it out. Start looking for double standards here, and you will find them in abundance.

If you try to put a frog in a boiling pot of water, it will immediately struggle to get out before it dies. However, if you put a frog in just a cool pot of water and gradually increase the heat, it will not struggle. It will simply sit in there until it is killed. Well, we're in that pot of water, the temperature is going up... how far are we from being boiled alive? If something is wrong, make noise about it. Do something about it. Learn your rights, and be aware of what happens around you. And again, this is nothing new.

Occupy Wall Street

By now, I think it's safe to assume we've all heard of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement. We've seen the signs saying "we are the 99%," we've seen the occasional Guy Fawkes mask. Less well known is just what they want. We know they're part of the 99%, we know that a lot of them probably like "V for Vendetta," and we know that they are angry. But about what, exactly?

The problem is that they don't have a centralized structure to get their message out. Maybe that's good with their ideals, but maybe not so good when it comes to the press. Sad to say, I suspect that many of the OWS people aren't even sure why they're out there.

But some messages still do come out loud and clear, thanks in particular to journalists and bloggers who support the movement and do some research into it. One such message in particular caught my attention:

The income gap in the modern day US is wider than that of the Roman Empire

Yes, you read that right. The gap between rich and poor in the US is wider than it was in the Roman empire, and the Roman empire collapsed. I'm not expecting the US as we know it to collapse anytime soon... at least not within our lifetimes. But then, what would a collapse mean? I don't imagine repo agents coming and shooing us out of the US. I imagine more that it would mean a complete loss of faith in the government. Maybe an armed revolt, maybe not. When you think about it, any government rules only at the mercy of its people. If the people as a whole simply began to ignore the government and set up their own, then that would be an effective collapse of America as we know it.

Many who read this may be rattling their sabers and shaking their fists, saying, "yeah, me and my group could make some real changes here!" That's kinda what I'm afraid of. I'm aware of some such groups... and the ones that I'm aware of, both conscience and my desire for survival would dictate that I resist such groups who would want to take things over. Each has their own agenda, and what I have seen, it is NOT to restore America.

Let's look back to this income gap issue though, shall we?

First of all, there is nothing wrong with capitalism in and of itself. It is kind of the ultimate freedom, and as I've said before, with freedom comes responsibility. Don't like an idea? Don't feed money into it. I feel that capitalism and democracy go hand in hand. Ideally, one gets paid for their efforts, and fairly so. That's the ideal. But, the human element gets thrown in, and that's where things get screwed up. As a whole, humans tend to be rather lazy and greedy.

If we go back maybe a hundred years, give or take, people were working their lives away. The five day work week, eight hours a day... if you mentioned that, you would have been laughed out of where ever it is you went. Even children had to work, just so their families could make ends meet. You may also have heard of "company stores." What that was, the companies, instead of paying workers in regular money paid them in credit for the company store, where they could buy the necessities. This way, there was a bare minimum in loss of profits by the company, by basically treating their workers as slaves. The workers had little choice but to accept.

Enter the labor unions. The labor unions organized workers to make a lot of changes in company policies and in law. This is where we get our more recognizable forty hour workweek, child labor laws, and similar things. But, as time passes, even the labor unions are not immune to the same laziness, greed, and corruption that they once fought against. They have the potential to still do good, but too often, they do not. They also attempt to take choice out of the workers' hands by making union membership, or at least paying union dues, a mandatory condition of employment, whether the worker feels they are doing a good job representing them or not.

Going forward, as technology improved, companies began noticing that it was possible to conduct business from afar. They hearkened back to the good ol' days of underpaid workers with low standards. This is when they began outsourcing to other nations. They loved it, the shareholders loved it, profits soared. For a time.

The thing about greed is that it is self-destructive. So many companies did this outsourcing that it noticeably raised unemployment and lowered salaries of workers. The very simple foundation of the economy is that if people are spending money, people are making money. American workers now had substantially less money to spend, because their jobs are being shipped overseas, and they are having to accept substantially less money when they are employed, and enjoying much less job security.

Seeing that income gap widen yet?

Further, like I said, this greed is self-destructive. With the American workers not working or having less money to spend, that greed is coming back around to bite those companies in the ass. Not just the ones that outsourced, though... poverty doesn't discriminate. Although what money people do have is generally used to buy the cheapest things possible to stretch the money as far as possible... which means more underpaid workers with minimal job security. So the problem is feeding off itself.

Whether you take OWS seriously or not, it may be wise to at least hear what messages you can from the movement. There is a reason for it, however garbled it may sometimes seem. As I've said, I'm not a news breaker, I simply think about the news and events more in-depth to clarify them, to look for first causes.

Wag the Dog

There is a phrase often used in politics - "wag the dog." No, I'm not referring to the movie. I actually haven't even watched that movie yet. It refers to when an issue of secondary importance is pushed up to detract attention from a perhaps more important issue. It comes from an old saying  - "a dog is smarter than its tail, but if the tail were smarter, the tail would wag the dog."

This tactic is not at all unusual in politics, although while certain issues are rightly secondary issues, one can still, in a sense, wag the dog by overstating the importance of the more important issues to the point of attempting to make someone feel guilty by even bringing up the secondary issues.

This is what Bachmann seems to be doing in a perhaps outdated story I read, as she has dropped out of the election after the Iowa stuff: Bachmann throws a hissy-fit when asked if she still holds her stance

To summarize, a CNN anchor asked Bachmann if she pulls back any of her very strong stance on social issues, most specifically that of homosexuality. She goes on to list a couple of quotes from Bachmann on the subject - "Gays live a very sad life," and "it's part of Satan."

Bachmann was quick to respond, saying she thought it was a bizarre thing to bring up when the economy is in shambles, then going on to say that she came from a family that was below poverty, and that she had to earn her way out of poverty.

To me, that honestly seems a cop-out on Bachmann's part. While certainly the economy is an important issue, so is that of equal rights, I think. If she made the economy somehow perfect, this issue would still exist just the same. We all know her stances, but I'm fairly sure she was trying to wiggle out of having another flare-up before the Iowa caucuses.

If not for how strongly she voiced her opposition to equal rights for gays, and the fact that she linked them to Satan, then I may be able to overlook this. With her passionate hate for them however, I know that the economy is certainly not taking the level of priority in her own mind that she suggested by her rebuttal to the CNN anchor.

My point is that no matter how important you think one issue is, don't ignore a candidate's stances on other issues. It will bite you in the ass.