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.

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!

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.

Prejudice and Hypocrisy

When talking about equal rights, it's generally very bad practice to make exceptions. In early America, there were several exceptions to the "all men are created equal" philosophy - basically anyone who wasn't white and/or Christian. Also, the "men" part of that philosophy was treated in a much more literal sense than it is today, as it was the accepted belief that women just weren't as important as men. And as for sexual orientation, forget about it. If you were anything other than straight, you were insane. In some cases, that would mean electroshock treatment, frontal lobotomies, etc. And that's just the institutionalized stuff, not the lynch-mob type of stuff.

Lately, bullying has been making the news a lot. The rather horrible consequences of it are becoming a lot more publicized where we are hearing about suicides and the like as a result of it. I realize I may be saying this phrase a lot on my blog, but "it's nothing new." When things like bullying, child abuse, domestic violence, sexual abuse, etc, become more publicized, there is a common misconception that it is new. Then the generation gets blamed, "ie, when I was that age, we knew to treat each other with respect, or we'd end up with a hot butt!"

But again, it's nothing new. In the older days, it was simply accepted that child abuse and domestic abuse, and sometimes even sexual abuse was "just the way things are." For a child to admit that they were being abused, especially if by a same-sex abuser, it would scandalize the whole family. So it simply wasn't talked about. Child abuse and domestic violence were "a family matter."

It's undeniable that huge strides have been made (though some still yearn for the days when they had the "right" to beat their kids and/or wives), and progress is still being made. As someone who has had to deal with a lot of bullying as a kid, I'm glad that more is being done about it.

But let's get back to why I titled this post "Prejudice and Hypocrisy," shall we? This is why:

OK to bully gay kids if you're Christian or otherwise philosophically or politically opposed

What's the fucking difference? Under this same hair-brained philosophy, aren't all bullies practicing free speech? "Now so-and-so, we know that he broke your nose and made you eat dog crap, but he was practicing his First Amendment right in free expression - he's philosophically opposed to wimpy kids with glasses, and you have no right to obstruct his First Amendment rights."

It's the same damned thing. It's a free country, but rights end where they begin to trample on those of others. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" - sound familiar to anyone?

Unfortunately, this seems to be a common tactic with the religious right, and they seem to see nothing wrong with it. They keep the rights for themselves to trample on the rights of others. If their rights become limited to the same as those of others, they scream about persecution. Sadly, it's human nature, though. It's not something that can be blamed on religion, only those who use it to justify their own hate and prejudice. Everyone wants rights, but few are willing to accept the responsibilities, even if the responsibility is as simple as respecting the same rights of others. But, with things like this, it is little surprise that so many are walking away from the church, and at times even becoming hateful of it.

I wonder... would these same lawmakers be supportive of an atheist bully's right to bully around Christian kids? Again, it's the same damn thing.

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.

The Differences Between Democrats and Republicans

Sad to say, the differences between the two main parties are fewer than either of them would like to admit. Democrats tout themselves to be liberal and progressive, while Republicans tout themselves to be conservative and in favor of small government.

If one looks at the dictionary definitions of the two party names, or perhaps their root words, we go a little further in-depth as to the original intentions that brought the parties into existence. The word "Democrat" obviously refers to "democracy," which means government by the people, and most likely a free electoral system. As for Republican, it just as obviously refers to the belief in a republic, which means government by representatives of the people. As you can see, the two definitions are virtually interchangeable today, and I doubt that more than a handful of people (including those leaders who align themselves with one party or the other) know the difference. Historically, a democracy would refer to more direct rule by the people, where a Republic would mean rule by representatives who are thought of as perhaps being wiser or more educated than the people.

With this, the Civil War would be a good example to illustrate this difference. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, and rather progressive for his time. He went against what was popular when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy, was actually a Democrat, believing in states' rights to secede from the union, in keeping the popular institution of slavery, etc. It could perhaps be described as ironic now that the parties seem to have switched roles, with Republicans talking about secession due to Obama's presidency, and Democrats being the main driving force in Washington for civil rights movements that aren't always popular.

I'll say this bluntly: both parties want big government, though one of them denies this.

With Democrats, you get big government in the form of a nanny-state. Perhaps well-meaning, but still restricting liberties "for your own good." This is where you start seeing excessive regulation, like toys in kids' meals at fast food restaurants being banned, cartoon character mascots on kids' cereal boxes being banned, gun regulations that suggest that no one is responsible enough to really be trusted with guns. By definition, these would actually be more Republican ideals than Democrat ideals, as it is suggestive of a sort of elitism. But again, dictionary definitions simply do not apply to today's reality.

The Republican style of big government tends to be theocratic in nature. The Republicans tend to legislate on moral issues rather than simply sticking with the common good. This meddles in the freedoms and liberties of the people just as much as the Democrats' nanny-state ideas. The Republicans in recent years also has shown a tendency to be big spenders, same as the Democrats. Just a difference on what they spend the money on.

My own thought is that we are adults. I spent eighteen years being treated as a child by my parents with no alternative to simply accepting it. I didn't go through all that just to be treated as a child by the government that supposedly knows what's best for me, either from a Republican or Democrat perspective. I believe in freedom, and with freedom certainly comes responsibility. I also believe in compassion... but compassion in helping someone get back on their feet as opposed to making it easier to stay off one's feet.

If you agree, then it's up to you to demand the change rather than simply accepting what you're offered, like a well cared for child. Don't let a party or anyone else tell you what to believe.

Introduction

With the plethora of blogs already out there on one subject or another, it would almost seem that one who adds to that mess owes an explanation, if not an apology. Of course, living in a nation that has free speech written into the Constitution, that isn't the case.

The simple fact is that we all have our own thoughts and ideas of how things should be, and if we let any one person do all our talking for us, it is weakness and/or cowardice. It is human nature to flock with others, like-minded, but foolish to give absolute loyalty to a person or group or political party in this, rather than to an ideal. The current mess we have in American politics, I feel, is largely due to party loyalties rather than loyalties to the ideals this nation was built around.

I have no delusions about what I am. I chose the title of this blog, "Just Another Hack With a Blog," because I know that this is exactly what most people will think when they see yet another blog preaching about politics and the like. I am not a news breaker, I am not a famous pundit, or even an anonymous insider. Just someone who made a blog to try and clarify this mess we have in America. Kinda like Rush "lame-brain" Limbaugh, but with less of a following.

I'll say it right now that my own politics tend to lean toward the left, but with a Libertarian streak. I am registered Independent, always have been, and probably always will be. I encourage debate, and if you find things I say to be outlandish, feel free to fact-check. I don't pretend to be a god. At the same time though, don't expect that you'll convert me to your views. If you do so, you'll probably think I'm rather stubborn. I notice that the word "stubborn" is frequently used to describe those who don't instantly convert to the view of another, more stubborn than who they're using that word to describe. I also am not quick to buy into conspiracy theories, as I feel that they are dangerous.

Anyway, stick around, and let's have some fun.