By now, you're no doubt aware of the Digital TV conversion occuring on 2/17/09. Its only a few weeks away now. Ever since I heard about this conversion, I've been a little confused and a bit suspicious about the reasoning behind this. Why do they suddenly want to terminate all analog signals? My initial thought was to follow the dollars. Who would stand to make money here? The manufacturers of the conversion boxes, for one. Those who would sell the rights to the "new" frequencies (the Government), for two. But this seems like small potatoes for the Feds to mandate that infrastructure be put in place for this conversion, just for, what, a couple hundred million dollars (I know, sounds like a lot, but think in terms in GDP, domestic budgeting, etc)? So I researched a bit, and by all accounts, the reasoning sounds legit. Its actually quite boring, so I'm not going to get into it here - you can research on your own. However, if anyone unearths credible info to arouse more suspicion, please Facebook it to me, and I'll post it here.
But from that research, I "stumbled" accross something far more disturbing... A few weeks back, I had caught an episode of 60Minutes, a show I don't typically watch. They were doing a piece on the technology currently being developed that was capable of accurately reading peoples minds. I'll attach a link to the full video below, but read on first...
Conservatives and Liberals (to a lesser extent) are always concerned with infringement on the civil liberties they justifiably believe are granted by the Constitution. Who is to say what you can and cannot say? I mean, isn't "Freedom of Speach" one of the most fundamental of reasons for the foundations of this country? Isn't the stifling of that liberty one of the very definitions of a dictatorship (along with the disarming of the citizens, and a lack of a fair voting process)? I've always said that you have a right to say what is on your mind. Those that hear you have the right to react to it. This is called "law." If I had a viewpoint that I felt was not well-recepted, I would simply keep my mouth shut. "You can't control your thoughts, but you can control your mouth."
This brings me back to the 60Minutes piece. Now, click on this link, and watch the video. Don't read on until after you've watch it all...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/31/60minutes/main4694713.shtml
How does this make you feel? Do you like that we will soon be be able to "ethically" interrogate suspected terrorists, obtain info we "know" to be accurate, and hopefully act on it, all without harming them physically, or violating their "human rights?" Maybe the streets in your town will be safer, once police can take anyone off the streets who seems familiar with the circumstances surrounding a crime scene (what does a Trial by Jury prove, anyway?)? Remember one thing - technology NEVER, EVER, goes backwards. NEVER...
How long until this technology is advanced to the point where it not only "accurately" reads your thoughts, and relays them, unbeknowst to you, to whomever wants to know (your local WalMart, your job, criminals... and yes, the Government), but actually INPUTS thoughts into your head? Sounds laughable, right? Remember what the gentleman in the video says to his students; "There is no longer such a thing as Science Fiction. Everything I knew as Science Fiction when I was growing up, we are now doing." You need to buy a hamburger. You can afford this car. You want to donate to this charity... You want to vote for this candidate...
What if the technology was not used to coerce you into voting for a certain "candidate" (Fair elections?), but was used on that candidate once in office?
This is a game of setting precedent... Please, keep your eyes open, and know your rights...
Another link:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-digitaltv/article_1019.jsp
Monday, January 26, 2009
Friday, January 23, 2009
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Delicatessen
I figure its time for something lighthearted, that doesn't require a lot of thought. Sandwiches!
You know, when I was in college, I had the "opportunity" to work at a local deli. When it gets close to lunch time, and your starving, you get all sorts of ideas for things to try on a Hoagie. Usually, these ideas later seem grotesque after the hunger sibsides, but every now and again, you hit a bullseye. Some of those bullseyes:
Haminara - a plump Kaiser Roll, toasted lightly, with spread Marinara on both sides. Seperately, you heat honey-baked ham and Mozzerella cheese. Heating seperately allows you to maintain the crispiness of the Roll. Once you have both hot, put the ham and Mozz on the bottom half of the Kaiser Roll (cheese on top of ham). Add Lettuce and Tomato (cold). Goes good w/ a Sobe.
Ham N' Apple - OK, this one is stolen from a former co-worker, but its real good. You need to get a Honeycrisp apple, and quarter it into wedges. Next, you slice one of the wedges, horizontally, into superthin slices (think like lunchmeat or cheese). You need boiled ham and Muenster cheese. Add HoneyMustard, Lettuce, Tomato, and your sliced apple quarter (you could eat the other 75% of the apple, or throw it away.. whatever).
Turk-Marachino - Find yourself a jar of sweet Marachino Cherries. Dice them up into small pieces. Next, find some fresh, non-processd, Rotisserie Turkey, and Prosciutto, both sliced thin. This goes best with a Provolone or Muenster, your choice (or if your feeling scandelous, try BOTH!) You won't need to add any condiment to the roll, since the cherries are juicy. Add Lettuce (no tomato). You can also subsitute Bacon for the Prosciutto.
Give 'em a shot...
You know, when I was in college, I had the "opportunity" to work at a local deli. When it gets close to lunch time, and your starving, you get all sorts of ideas for things to try on a Hoagie. Usually, these ideas later seem grotesque after the hunger sibsides, but every now and again, you hit a bullseye. Some of those bullseyes:
Haminara - a plump Kaiser Roll, toasted lightly, with spread Marinara on both sides. Seperately, you heat honey-baked ham and Mozzerella cheese. Heating seperately allows you to maintain the crispiness of the Roll. Once you have both hot, put the ham and Mozz on the bottom half of the Kaiser Roll (cheese on top of ham). Add Lettuce and Tomato (cold). Goes good w/ a Sobe.
Ham N' Apple - OK, this one is stolen from a former co-worker, but its real good. You need to get a Honeycrisp apple, and quarter it into wedges. Next, you slice one of the wedges, horizontally, into superthin slices (think like lunchmeat or cheese). You need boiled ham and Muenster cheese. Add HoneyMustard, Lettuce, Tomato, and your sliced apple quarter (you could eat the other 75% of the apple, or throw it away.. whatever).
Turk-Marachino - Find yourself a jar of sweet Marachino Cherries. Dice them up into small pieces. Next, find some fresh, non-processd, Rotisserie Turkey, and Prosciutto, both sliced thin. This goes best with a Provolone or Muenster, your choice (or if your feeling scandelous, try BOTH!) You won't need to add any condiment to the roll, since the cherries are juicy. Add Lettuce (no tomato). You can also subsitute Bacon for the Prosciutto.
Give 'em a shot...
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
A Reason to Celebrate...
Well, its here. Inaugaration Day, 2009... I knew for a couple days now that I wanted to write something about this day, due to its historic nature. But what tone? Obama was not my choice for President in November (neither was McCain, for what its worth), but I agree with his mantra that we need "Change." My one concern with the President-elect's vision of change is that I think he may bring about the exact opposite change that we need... Government is massive, and the term "bailout" has become commonplace. Because of the big-government decisions made by our incumbent President (ironic, as he ran as a Republican), Mr. Obama will have more authoritarian power than any president before him, coupled with an undeniably partisan Congress. Think about that for a minute...
But before all-else, I am an American. I intend to honor Obama as my president, and respect him as a person. His journey to this historic moment is a momentous occasion in the nation's history, and he is as deserving as anyone else to serve as Leader of the Free World.
So I will not sully this day with political slander. I'm not going to drudge up bad blood, and rant about taxes or war. No. Instead, I'm going to describe for you the picture here at work today:
It appears as though a mob-mentality has taken over, funny as it may sound, considering everyone is dressed rather professionally. There is work to be done, lots of it, but everyone is parading to the cafeteria, smile in hand. Some people that live locally actually left the office to go home to watch the Inaugaration live. Others are trying to dowload the necessary software to their employer-issued computers so they can watch it live from their desk. I don't know if this would work or not, and I don't intend to try. The most common phrase I've heard this morning? "I know, its so exciting!" Its kind of funny, especially since a lot of the people I overhear saying these things really don't even know WHY they are excited! They won't admit it, but I know from speaking with them in the past that they really are just regurgitating propoganda from MSNBC. I smile and nod. People are coming to my desk, and asking what I'm doing to celebrate...
Its now 12:06... President Obama - give me a REASON to celebrate...
But before all-else, I am an American. I intend to honor Obama as my president, and respect him as a person. His journey to this historic moment is a momentous occasion in the nation's history, and he is as deserving as anyone else to serve as Leader of the Free World.
So I will not sully this day with political slander. I'm not going to drudge up bad blood, and rant about taxes or war. No. Instead, I'm going to describe for you the picture here at work today:
It appears as though a mob-mentality has taken over, funny as it may sound, considering everyone is dressed rather professionally. There is work to be done, lots of it, but everyone is parading to the cafeteria, smile in hand. Some people that live locally actually left the office to go home to watch the Inaugaration live. Others are trying to dowload the necessary software to their employer-issued computers so they can watch it live from their desk. I don't know if this would work or not, and I don't intend to try. The most common phrase I've heard this morning? "I know, its so exciting!" Its kind of funny, especially since a lot of the people I overhear saying these things really don't even know WHY they are excited! They won't admit it, but I know from speaking with them in the past that they really are just regurgitating propoganda from MSNBC. I smile and nod. People are coming to my desk, and asking what I'm doing to celebrate...
Its now 12:06... President Obama - give me a REASON to celebrate...
Friday, January 16, 2009
Gotta get it off my chest...
You know, its late at night, and I don't want to get into a Big Thing, but it seems to me that people don't fully understand what Socialism really is. "They" seem to think that Socialism simply means that government provides more services to the people. They don't see any correlation between socialist policies, and the big government, authoritarian failures around the world in the last century... For the record, let's take a look at the definition of Socialism:
Socialism: an economic system based on state ownership of capital
State Ownership of Capital. How does that sit with you? Personally, I like owning my own capital. Its an old maxim - there are two things in the world that corrupt. Do you know what they are? You got it - money and power... Lemme ask you this now. How do you feel about the overall honesty of our politicians now? Are you confident in their ethics, generally (Blagovich, Bush, Cheney, Clinton...)? Me neither. So why in the world would you WILLINGLY hand more money and more power to these people, coupled with oversight over the world's most dangerous military power, the world's most influential money supply, etc??? It makes no sense. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating a "no government" policy, but let's be reasonable here. Government's function, in a democracy, is to protect the people of its nation, provide basic services, and general oversight of industry. NOTHING ELSE. NOTHING.
Another misconception out there I encounter rather frequently is that "the U.S. has a captialist government." People, capitalism is not a style of government, it is a type of economic structure.
Governments: Democracy, Dictatorship, Monarchy, Fascism
Economies: Capitalism, Socialism, Communism
One needs to work w/ the other... For example, try to picture a Capitalist Dictatorship? How would that work? How could one man (the dictator) maintain that power if free market capitalism allows his peoples to control their own economy? It makes no sense, right? Now, try to imagine a Communist Democracy? A communal society dictates that the state's wealth is evenly distributed amongst the people, right? This is not a trick question now - who decides how that wealth is "evenly distributed?" A democratically elected politician, who, virtually by definition, needs to promise added benefits to his supportors (thus completed erasing the even distribution of wealth, and guaranteeing corruption)? Not likely. So we come to the inevitable conclusion that you cannot have democracy (commonly referred to as "freedom"), along with Big government Communism.
In an earlier post, I mentioned that the notion that the political spectrum is linear is a myth, and I'd like to take a moment to explain what I meant there. The common conception is that all the way to the left, you have big government (communism), and all the way to the right, you have small government (capitalism). But these two definitions don't extend to the extremes of each idealogy. Further to the left of Communism (but not too much further) is a dictatorship. In communism, you have already given "your" government control of the means of production, waived your right to private ownership, and more than likely, fair elections. Why, with all this "money and power" would these politicians honor any civil rights that you feel are a given? They have all the money. They have all the power. I'm assuming they have already enacted strict gun control as one of their first moves to "provide safety to the people" (here, you should be thinking of such visionary gun-control advocates as Adolf Hitler and Stalin, but I'll leave that up to you). How much further do you have to step to establish a dictatorship?
If you go further to the right of capitalism, however, you remove more and more of government's authority and presence in society. When there is no more established authority amongst the people, you have anarchy. But think for a moment about Somalia, which hasn't had a consistent government in decades, and can accurately be defined as an anarchist "society." Is there no rule at all, where, because there is no rule, all are equal? Not at all. On the contrary, you have authoritarian rule by those who control the weapons and brute strength (barbarism). You commonly find mass genocides occuring in these regions (Darfur).
So I propose that the political spectrum is circular. To far the the left, and you have big government, totalitarian rule. To far to the right, and you have no government rule by whoever seizes the weapons. Regardless. You have no rights, and no freedom. The idea is the find the safe medium, where government serves only basic, protectorate functions, and leaves the majority of the power to its people.. Allows the market to decide how much things should cost, and honors a written, uninterpretable document that prevents abuse of powers. Where there is transparency when appropriate (do you really want to know about every single threat this country sees on a daily basis???). Effective, but not oppressive regulations are in place to ensure that too much power does not flow to any one person.
The one flaw of Capitalism... It only works with minimal government intervention....
Socialism: an economic system based on state ownership of capital
State Ownership of Capital. How does that sit with you? Personally, I like owning my own capital. Its an old maxim - there are two things in the world that corrupt. Do you know what they are? You got it - money and power... Lemme ask you this now. How do you feel about the overall honesty of our politicians now? Are you confident in their ethics, generally (Blagovich, Bush, Cheney, Clinton...)? Me neither. So why in the world would you WILLINGLY hand more money and more power to these people, coupled with oversight over the world's most dangerous military power, the world's most influential money supply, etc??? It makes no sense. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating a "no government" policy, but let's be reasonable here. Government's function, in a democracy, is to protect the people of its nation, provide basic services, and general oversight of industry. NOTHING ELSE. NOTHING.
Another misconception out there I encounter rather frequently is that "the U.S. has a captialist government." People, capitalism is not a style of government, it is a type of economic structure.
Governments: Democracy, Dictatorship, Monarchy, Fascism
Economies: Capitalism, Socialism, Communism
One needs to work w/ the other... For example, try to picture a Capitalist Dictatorship? How would that work? How could one man (the dictator) maintain that power if free market capitalism allows his peoples to control their own economy? It makes no sense, right? Now, try to imagine a Communist Democracy? A communal society dictates that the state's wealth is evenly distributed amongst the people, right? This is not a trick question now - who decides how that wealth is "evenly distributed?" A democratically elected politician, who, virtually by definition, needs to promise added benefits to his supportors (thus completed erasing the even distribution of wealth, and guaranteeing corruption)? Not likely. So we come to the inevitable conclusion that you cannot have democracy (commonly referred to as "freedom"), along with Big government Communism.
In an earlier post, I mentioned that the notion that the political spectrum is linear is a myth, and I'd like to take a moment to explain what I meant there. The common conception is that all the way to the left, you have big government (communism), and all the way to the right, you have small government (capitalism). But these two definitions don't extend to the extremes of each idealogy. Further to the left of Communism (but not too much further) is a dictatorship. In communism, you have already given "your" government control of the means of production, waived your right to private ownership, and more than likely, fair elections. Why, with all this "money and power" would these politicians honor any civil rights that you feel are a given? They have all the money. They have all the power. I'm assuming they have already enacted strict gun control as one of their first moves to "provide safety to the people" (here, you should be thinking of such visionary gun-control advocates as Adolf Hitler and Stalin, but I'll leave that up to you). How much further do you have to step to establish a dictatorship?
If you go further to the right of capitalism, however, you remove more and more of government's authority and presence in society. When there is no more established authority amongst the people, you have anarchy. But think for a moment about Somalia, which hasn't had a consistent government in decades, and can accurately be defined as an anarchist "society." Is there no rule at all, where, because there is no rule, all are equal? Not at all. On the contrary, you have authoritarian rule by those who control the weapons and brute strength (barbarism). You commonly find mass genocides occuring in these regions (Darfur).
So I propose that the political spectrum is circular. To far the the left, and you have big government, totalitarian rule. To far to the right, and you have no government rule by whoever seizes the weapons. Regardless. You have no rights, and no freedom. The idea is the find the safe medium, where government serves only basic, protectorate functions, and leaves the majority of the power to its people.. Allows the market to decide how much things should cost, and honors a written, uninterpretable document that prevents abuse of powers. Where there is transparency when appropriate (do you really want to know about every single threat this country sees on a daily basis???). Effective, but not oppressive regulations are in place to ensure that too much power does not flow to any one person.
The one flaw of Capitalism... It only works with minimal government intervention....
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Farewell and Good Riddance
I just caught President Bush's Farewell Address, and I'm feeling nostalgic. Remember the 2000 Primaries and subsequent Presidential campaign of W? Most notably, here is the foreign policy that Mr. Bush presented the American people:
Bush promised a humble foreign policy with no nation building. He had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."[1]
How did that work out?
For your entertainment, here are some quotes from the 2000 Election Season:
http://www.quotegarden.com/election-2000.html
Enjoy!
Bush promised a humble foreign policy with no nation building. He had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."[1]
How did that work out?
For your entertainment, here are some quotes from the 2000 Election Season:
http://www.quotegarden.com/election-2000.html
Enjoy!
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
So I recently joined a gym, and I've been struggling to find the ideal time to go. I'd like to go in the morning, before work, but MAN its tough getting out of the house, especially when its 5 FREAKING degrees out! For this story, you need to understnad tht I live on the deep part of a loop, meaning literally zero cars EVER come anywhere NEAR our house. Last night, I left my car in the road, so my wife (who got home after me) could park in the driveway, and I wouldn't be blocked in in the morning. I go out to my car in the morning, and BAM! Parking ticket, on the windshield. Apparently, this town has a "standing parking ban" from Nov to March, or something! Ridiculous! Not only that, but the ticket wasn't there at night, and I got up at 6:00 in the morning to go to the gym. That means that in the dead of the night, The Fuzz came to my house to slap me w/ a $10 ticket. I knew I shouldn't have bought a house so close to Dunkin' Donuts...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)