Maybe We Aren't All That Different After All...

When we started the semester and more specifically this Government class I knew I wasn't going to be best friends with everyone of my classmates. I do enjoy some civil discourse from time to time, and several times before class discussion would spring up and I identified a few classmates that have thought or beliefs contrary to mine.  I had hope I would have had more chances to engage with these individuals during the semester through this blog, but the occasion never came up. Ironically with our last blog assignment, I searched and searched for someone's writing to catch a spark, and get me fired up to argue to the contrary on their opinion, and I found none.

I was pleasantly surprised to find an article by Yandy Gonzalez titled, "Wait Did Obama Do something Right?" Yandy and I have had several conversations in class on some controversial topics, gun control, national defense, etc. But here in the eleventh hour(literally) I was counting on him to give me an opinion to tear down, disassemble and Yandy let me down.He let me down because I agree with him, or more importantly, he agrees with me. The NSA and it's surveillance tactics have got to e changed, and the actions that President Obama is taking is a move in the right direction.

Fear is a great way to sell change.  When the building came down in NY, we didn't need much convincing that our national security was full of holes.  The answer President Bush(or Cheney) gave us was the Patriot Act, and the creation of another cabinet position, the Homeland Security Administration.  Immediately we felt safer, we had colored terror threat charts to guide us as to when we needed to buy duct tape and plastic wrap, and now the military had the ability to deploy on our own soil, GREAT!

One thing I don't agree with Yandy about is that the people we need to watch are the ones traveling to foreign countries.  Unfortunately it's not that simple. In order to catch a terrorist, you have to think like a terroist.  If a terroist was here in the U.S. and was connected to a terrorist regime, let's say Syria, they aren't going to fly to Syria.  They are going to fly to Turkey, an allie, and meet with their bad-guy friends there.

In conclusion, Yandy is right.  The NSA needs to be reigned back in.  The Patriot Act need to be reformed, or repealed, and our intelligence agencies need to start working on building actual intelligence, instead of relying on artificial intelligence collection methods.

New Rules: Do What Ever You Want America!!

Hell in a hand basket, that's where we are going. Whether you are religious or not, you have most likely heard someone say the "end times are near," and I believe they may be right.  I'm not certain it will be a scene right out of Revelations, but it sure isn't going to be pretty.  Now understand that it was not my intention to write two articles in a row touching on gun rights, but this story just has too much to offer. I'm talking about the Cliven Bundy story out of Nevada.  This story has cows, unpaid land-use fees, tortoises, high-powered rifles with scopes, the government, and freedom fighters.

With the current events going on in the world, possible world war, terrorism, looming natural disasters, I sometimes worry about what would happen if there was a disruption to our communication system. I also worry about too much anger from the fringe groups or factions in society. I constantly worry about the continued degradation of our countries educational system. We are dumb. We are so dumb. It's almost like we are de-evolving as a species. I can't time travel, but I think back to why rules were made.  There had to be a reason for a system of order, or rule of law to exist. And I'm not talking about the writing of the Bill of Rights, I'm talking about caveman rules.  It's my theory(and so far there isn't enough evidence to prove me wrong) that rules came through the creation of the concept of religion.  But why did religion come about? It was most likely because the smaller cavemen were sick and tired of having their women stolen from bigger and stronger cavemen.  So religion was invented to scare people with consequences.

The only way to stop a primal creature from being primal is to introduce the need to be obedient to an mystical spirit. So a god was created, and people started to live in harmony.  But then a tower was built, and some King wanted to hangout with that god and then different religions were made, and languages, and ethnicities(SEE: Science). So what's my point...? My point is that religion is a mess and it never solved the original problem.  The original problem is that human beings are complex animals.  Their behavior is difficult to quantify.  Within the species there are belief structures that are similar but different, and others that are completely contrary to the others.  Humans are terrible to each other sometimes.  If given the choice between doing something that will benefit someone else, or doing something that will benefit themselves, nine of ten people will better themselves. Why? How do we change this? Why can't people be good? Are we doomed?

Yes and No.  We have a chance, but it's 30-40 years from now, if we make it.  As the ice caps melt, and we pollute or water supply, and we pollute the air, and we keep killing each other in wars or malls or movie theaters or schools, we are not making any progress toward solving the core problem. We need to evolve as a species.  You've heard the rumors.  You've probably heard someone whisper about it.  There is a thing called a higher plane of consciousness.



We must transcend as a species to get past our primal instincts. Only when we can truly learn that we all belong to eachother will we start to move in the right direction, toward peace.  Religion stands in the way. Religion is a business. Religion has been very profitable for a very long time. Religion likes the rules, they wrote them, and a lot of governments have governing documents that are permiated with the terms and phrases from the "great books" that rule our planet.

God is trying to kill us.

So what does it have to do with Cliven Bundy.  Well, he's an asshole.  He owes the government over $1,000,000, and his only defense is that he doesn't recognize the Federal government. I'm not a Belieber but that little douche-bag still exists.  You gotta pay your tab with the government, or else they are going to come to your house and ask for a check.  When the BLM said they were coming over, they were told they would be facing armed resistance, so the BLM showed up in force.  It wasn't hard for Bundy to find a bunch of trigger happy rednecks to arm up and put together a show of force to meet the BLM. Win for the rednecks, because we all learned a little something about the bad press that can come from shooting lunatics(SEE: Waco).

Bottom line: I stopped caring about this article, and this issue once Bundy started waxing philosophical on African Americans.  I now feel sorry for him, for he has not transcended. Bundy is just another idiot that was propelled to "Patriot of the Month" until he showed his true colors.

Also in my research for this article I found this:

Click here to read the same article again, basically. I promise I wrote my article before I read this one.

After reading this article I was hit with the realization that I completely agree with USA Today, and now I feel shame, and need to re-examine my world view. Good luck world!

We Don't Need Gun Control. We Need, Access to Guns, Control.

It took me a while to find a blog entry by one of my classmates to stir some emotions in me.  Most of the original blogs stated opinions I agreed with, or were on topics that I didn't have a strong opinion on. Then I found, Shadman Murshed's piece titled, "Guns Are Our Friends... Lets Treat Them Better, So They Stick Around." Shadman took a stab at defending our right to bear arms. He argues that guns have saved us from great evils, and help maintain a balance in nature. Mr. Murshed goes on to highlight the millions of guns that are sold each year, providing jobs, and tax revenue the industry provides each year. Shadman says that guns are our friends. According to him, the possession of a gun is a god given right, and if the government tries to control his access to a handgun, rifle, or shotgun, he'll say, "What's up with that?"

Well here is, what's up with that:

ABC NEWS:

U.S. Has More Guns – And Gun Deaths – Than Any Other Country, Study Finds

We have the most guns per capita compared to the next 27 industrial countries. You would think that with that one statistic, and with the controversy surrounding gun ownership and gun control that we might have researchers studying the effects of such a heavily armed society.  Many people are shocked to know that the Center For Disease Control banned research on gun in 1996. They banned gun research. It took the Sandy Hook shootings in 2012 to start to move to possibly push legislation to make background checks mandatory for all gun purchases.  Unfortunately the assault weapons ban, the high capacity magazine ban, and the mandatory background checks all failed last year. Nothing has changed. Nearly anybody can purchase a gun.  

Please understand that I am not trying to alter the constitution. I'm not trying to ban guns. I just think we need to deny access to some people.  We also need tougher laws for careless handling of one's guns.

“Keeping guns out of the hands of people who are at an elevated risk for violence and suicide is a public health priority,” said Shannon Frattaroli, PhD, MPH.

On gun-control, there is overwhelming 92 - 7 percent support for background checks for all gun buyers, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. Support for universal background checks is 91 - 8 percent among voters in a household with a gun.  

Look at Ft. Hood in 2012.  Then look at Ft. Hood in 2014. Look at Columbine, Sandy Hook, the theater in Colorado, Virginia Tech, the Navy Yard... heck, just look at this list!

A Timeline Of Mass Shootings In The US Since Columbine

When you look at that list, you can start to see some similar patterns.  The perpetrators of these horrific crimes, often take their own life.  The medical system that we have had in this country for the last 50 years has failed these people.  I'm sure they may have been fine people, but their mental stability was shaken.  The cause is not something I will try and diagnose in this blog entry. I'll just tear a page from Shadman's book and say, what's up with that?  But the facts are the facts, a lot of people that have problems with depression, violent tendencies, and drug habits(prescribed or illegal), have access to guns.

Over a 100,000 veterans diagnosed with PTSD... Are we giving them the care they deserve? 

WHAT'S UP WITH THAT?!?!

-We need better health care.

-We need to close the gun-show loop holes. ( In some states you can sell semi-auto machine guns to people without even looking at their ID)

-We need to push for more gun safety classes.

-And we need to link the medical system with a national gun registration system. If you are prescribed anti-psychotic drugs, your right to bare arms may have come to an end.

Shadman likes guns. So do I.  I used to own over 300 guns, and thousands of rounds of ammunition. I inherited the collection from a family member.  I enjoyed practicing safe gun ownership.  I hunted, and shot for sport. I also used to feel an invisible threat.  I remember being in a bar one night and a guy I barely knew mentioned something about my gun collection. I started selling them the next day. Guns in our country symbolize artificial power.  The gleam I saw in that fella's eye was not something I wanted to see crawling in my window late one night, possibly forcing me to defend myself.  I was in possession of a stockpile of tools for the weak. Anyone can shoot a gun. It takes a brave man to lay them down.

Bring 'em Home... Bring Them all Home.

Growing up in the 80's surrounded by military neighbors, I learned that Ronald Reagan was a President who wanted a strong America.  He boosted the military budget, he increased our reach in Europe, and most importantly, this show of strength won the Cold War. I learned this from the older male influences in my life.  These men were the fathers of my best friends and classmates.  They were career military men.  Many were veterans of the Vietnam War, some were Korean War veterans. Reagan made the lives better for these men and their families.  Salaries increased, and the outdated Korean and Vietnam War era equipment was replaced.  And spending increased, and spending increased, and spending increased....

No missiles were fired in the triumph over the Soviets during the Cold War.  We just out spent them, and overwhelmed them with displays of advanced technology, which the Soviets could not afford.

Missile defense "had less impact on the industry than many might think," Augustine said. "Although it was a highly publicized and certainly controversial program, in the grand scheme of defense spending it wasn't that large, and much of it was spent on research and development, a relatively smaller part of the defense budget."

The people it really affected were the Soviets, he said. "They were much more convinced we could make it work than many of us were, frankly, and certainly more than much of our media."

The Soviets felt they couldn't keep up with such technology, Augustine said, and came to believe that Reagan would spend more on weapons than they could ever match -- pushing them to effectively surrender in the Cold War. 

 - Norman R. Augustine, former chairman of Lockheed Martin Corp.

My point is this, we beat the Soviets of the 80's by out spending them.  We also didn't have the World Wide Web as we know it today.  It is not as easy to use smoke and mirrors to intimidate a foreign foe, unless they themselves are still on dial-up(See: North Korea).  Everybody is tapping everybody. All the major players have nuclear weapons, The U.S.A., Russia, China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran, Venezuela, Columbia, and maybe even Mexico. We are currently in a chess match with Russia, long gone is the weakened Soviet empire.  Russia is a proud country led by it's charismatic, ex-KGB agent leader, Vladimir Putin. They also have something that we don't have here in America, nationalistic pride. That nationalistic pride is what may allow Putin to push his supposed agenda to reunite the Soviet Union.

We out spent them before, and we are currently out spending them, but it can't continue like this. We can't continue to sustain the lifestyle we have become accustomed here in America while maintaining our place at the top of the hill.  With the end of the Cold War the power dynamics in the world changed.  Instead of two strong powers threatening to wipe each other off the map, the United States rose to the top of the totem pole of power.  To the victor goes the spoils right? Well, not exactly, we just ended up getting the duties of fulfilling the worlds "to-do" lists. We police the world, and it costs a lot of money to maintain that policing force.

My fear is that an escalation with Russia will lead to another world war.  A fight with Russia is a fight with North Korea, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan or India(whoever we don't support) and many of the Central and South American nations. We haven't been a good cop over the past 14 years in the eye of the world.  We have a lot of enemies.  The Russians have been patient, and they know we are vulnerable.  We are, and to be honest we have more important problems here at home.

 I think it's time to close up our bases over-seas, and bring all of the troops home, and let the rest of the world figure it out themselves. That's all we can do, because unless we created the government, nobody is asking for our help anymore.

Additional Reading:

How Vulnerable Are U.S. Troops in the Pacific?

Why is Iran Building a Mock U.S. Aircraft Carrier?

Russia Slams Germany For Halting Arms Deal Over Crimea

If Russia Swallows Ukraine the European System is Finished

I added this(3/31/14):

Turkey was trying to make a move on Syria recently.  A few weeks ago they blocked YouTube and Twitter, and it is thought that this leaked audio is the reason.  We set the precedent in 2003, when we went into Iraq to prevent future aggression from Saddam Hussein.  Preemptive action is what is was called.  Our past is coming to haunt us.  All the other countries want their land back.  And are looking for new and inventive ways or excuses to do it.  Unfortunately any action by one of our "allies" could pull us into a war.

VIDEO: leaked-turkish-war-plans-against-syria_news

Republicans: They Can't Control What You Think, But They Can Control The Lies You Hear

Look.  I'm gonna just put it out there.  I am probably a democrat.  I've never voted for a republican in a presidential election, however, if Colin Powell had run, I would have voted for him.  Why am I telling you this.  I'm telling you this because I am most likely biased against the republican party.  I picked a side long ago when I was born into my family.  I come from a long line of democrats.  I was born a democrat just like most people are born Steelers fans, or heaven forbid, Cowboys fans.  That analogy doesn't apply to me because I was born a Baltimore Colts fan, until Robert Irse moved them out of Baltimore and my family became Washington Redskin fans the next day, but I digress.  The democrats have my vote, most of the time.  I don't agree with all of the policies of the party, but I believe they mostly try to work for the greater good as opposed to the republicans that tend to work for big business and the rich.

The biggest problem I have with the republican party and their "agenda" is the constant stream of lies.  Over the past decade and a half the republicans have learned that they don't have to be right, they just have to be repetitive.  In Mike Lux's blog post, "Modern Conservatives: Frightened Falsifying Fools," he gives two glaring examples of how, when in front of the microphone, the leaders of the ultra-conservative wing of the republican party will stick to their guns, and when pressed for the truth, will "turn tail and run away."  Lux brings into focus the stark change in today's republican strategy from the hey-days of the republican party, conservative family-values platform from 1968 to 1998.

Buzzwords dominate the republican lexicon these days.  They even have a special gift of changing the words we use to help change public opinion.  The "poor" are now the "entitled." Which is really f'ed up when you think about it.  The "poor" you feel bad for, and you are a terrible person if you don't want to help. But, the "entitled," you actually can get MAD at.  The "entitled" are taking money out of your wallet, food out of your babies mouth, and they want to kick your dog or cat.

The republican ideology consists of a few salient points.  Lie, then repeat the lie.  And when asked if they are telling a lie, lie again.  Remember what I said earlier, I may be biased.  Calling someone a liar is fighting words, I realize this.  Maybe I want a fight.  Maybe I'm being provoked into a fight.  For, I am one of the victims of these perpetual lies.  I am one of the "entitled." I received and receive government handouts.  I get a grant to go to school.  I'm enrolled in "Obama Care." I was on food stamps once.  The republicans hate people like me, and the lies they tell America about people like me are hurtful, divisive, and it's sparking a class war.  To the republicans a person on unemployment is disincentivized by getting a handout.  It makes them lazy. Their tone on the minimum wage is the same.  When I was laid off in 2010, my take home pay went from $4200 per month to $2200.  With that government assistance, did I put an addition on my house, buy a boat, or start a small business? No, I had a fire-sale on my house, I sold my motorcycle to pay off my bills, I signed up for food stamps, and I moved to Austin, TX.  I moved to Austin because the average cost of a house was $125K less than Northern Virginia at the time, and $2200 a month goes quick with a $1500 rent payment.  I was not disincentivized to work, the second time I was on unemployment in late 2012, I just tried to change my stars.  The bio-tech company I worked for laid off 85% of the company and I was on the streets again.  This time I didn't move, I enrolled in school.  So I supported myself on $900 a month along with some grants, and worked to better my situation.  The help I got during those times of unemployment was money that I paid into the system.  I earned that money.  It was not a handout.  If you call me a mooch, I'll sock you right in the kisser.

Lux's blog post is provocative to republicans.  I can understand why they would take offense to Lux's opinion.  I would go and ask them about it, but I'd just be giving their lies more air time.

Additional Reading: Some of these guys are just assholes... Click for article.

You Are All Wrong, The Internet Told Me So!

 Before the widespread use of the internet we gathered information through traditional means.  The library was a repository of reference materials, books on the subject, and archives of periodicals.  You would use the traditional means of information gather to research the past.  To monitor the present state of affairs, one would rely on a few television news programs, magazine subscriptions, and the choice of many local and national newspapers.  These sources of information were reliable, and you could confidently know who you were getting your news from.  I grew up in a household that received the daily paper, The Washington Post, and I remember the smell of the paper on a hot day.  I have memories of reading the paper until my hands turned blue from the ink.  There is something so intimate about holding the news in your hand.  I also recall the first time I experienced the loss of a favorite journalist.  I always read his editorials first, and I had come to understand some parts of the world through his words, and with his passing, I felt I had lost a teacher.  Journalism used to mean something.  Like a priest gives his life to God, journalist used to give their lives to the pursuit of the truth. Today the competition for advertising revenue has changed media.  It started with cable and satellite TV, but the nail in the coffin was the advancement of the internet in the 80's and 90's. The Internet created too much competition for the traditional media outlets, and their refusal at first to embrace the internet into their business models was their undoing.  With the expanding competition from the internet, the product was watered down, sensationalized, and delivered with less information and more fear and has made us dumber.

A simple Google search on the topic, "does the internet make us dumber?", will show you that there are many opinions on the subject. One of the most challenged theories is one presented by Nicolas Carr, with his article in the Wall Street Journal, "Does The Internet Make You Dumber?" Carr contends that the use of the internet has changed the way we use our brains.  Many of his critics forget this when they argue that the internet gives us more choices, and more content.  I can take you to the finest library in the world, but if you can't read and understand the words on the page it would be useless to you.  This is what Carr contends we are doing to ourselves as we continue to use the internet for information gathering. He cites research from neuroscientist Michael Merzenich, who believes, "our brains are being "massively remodeled" by our ever-intensifying use of the Web and related media." Research shows that power-users of the internet are more distracted, and have a decreased ability to store the information they are exposed to. 

Some will contend that this is a question of how to judge and measure intelligence. In his article in Psychology Today, "Is Technology Making Us Stupid (and Smarter)?", Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, Ph.D. explains that the internet with all of it's complexities, actually makes complex problems easier to solve. Tomas says that with the use of the internet we have molded our minds to work like the smartphones and the tablets we use.  We no longer rely on our minds to store the information we seek out, but only to remember where to find it. Our brains are turning from encyclopedias to card-catalog systems(Not many of you will get that).

As a web designer and social media consultant for the past 15 years I have a more expanded knowledge of the internet that most consumers.  When building a website for a client, my services often include ways to code the website that will artificially move that website to the top of the search engines.  Every day Google changes their analytics to make their search engine more efficient, and everyday webmasters change their code to keep up.  Because of my work with website building and search engine optimization, I know that the first returned results from a search are not always there because they deserve to be.  The search engines do not rank the results of a search based on the truthfulness of the source, or the relevance to the subject you are researching.  Instead the pages that pop up first most likely have the most hits on the keyword you were searching, are linked to more websites than other sites, and have added relevant copy to their image tags.  These simple tricks can take a website from page 20 of a Google search to page 2 or 3.  Research shows that many people do not click past the 3rd page of results, so with a little bit of work you can get your website in front of someone.

While the internet opens up the world of information to use at the snap of a finger, we need to be conscious of how it it delivered to us.  The traditional ways were safe, and slow to change.  The internet allows us to read from many sources and digest many different points of view.  It is important to remember that the websites are making money on your clicks, and they may look credible because they were on the first search results page, but that could be artificial.  I believe that the internet can make us as smart or as dumb as we dream to be.

Additional Reading: (Topic:Racism and Media) http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2014/02/27/what-causes-inequality-systemic-and-individual-frames-for-racism-in-media/

Can We All Be "Citizens United" Against The Bullshit?

"Money is the root of all evil," everyone has heard that one before. Most people will agree with it to a certain extent.  Money can bring power, and power can corrupt even the most well intentioned man.  We trust our country to be run by representatives that we "elect" and "choose", but how do these representatives get on the ballots to begin with.  It takes a lot of money to run a campaign, and somebody has to pay the bill.  Political campaign contribution rules changed dramatically in 2010 with the Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission case the opening of the floodgates for unlimited corporate contributions to political campaigns.  And in the 2012 election cycle we saw that the Super PACS had a major impact.

Well it looks like the Supreme Court will have another chance to effect the world of politics next week in the McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission case. If you don't know what the case is about, let me sum it up for you:

If you ask Richard L. Hasen of UC Irvine, the McCutcheon case could be good for politics.  In his opinion piece in The Washington Post, he says that removing the limits of personal campaign contributions will streamline the route from donor to politician, and remove the nasty middleman(Super PACS). Mr. Hasen feels that the contribution limits, which have been in place since the Watergate Scandal, forced the individuals to donate instead to PACs, and not the candidate directly. This in a sense gave the power to the PACs and not the individual donor.  Mr. Hasen also goes on to say the he is "troubled by the prospect of an awful decision that would clear the way for more corruption. But I find some solace in the thought that such a ruling could have a surprising positive side effect: reducing gridlock in Washington."

Well Thank you for that, sir, I did need a good laugh. We can excuse the corruption, because at least those that have been corrupted are more efficient at doing it.  I'm not sure if this opinion was written tongue-and-cheek, for I do not know Mr. Hasen and his sense of humor.  I did however do a tiny bit of research on other writings or opinions Mr. Hasen has published.  I found an article written just a few months ago where he contradicts himself.  In a piece published in the New York Times titled, "Limits to Candidates Deter Corruption", Mr. Hasen clearly disagrees with himself.  In the piece, written in October of 2013 he says, "limiting direct contributions to candidates does serve the key public interest in deterring corruption of candidates." Ok, but it makes them more efficient, so it's not that bad, right? And then he says, "The closer the money comes to the hands of members of Congress, the greater the danger of corruption and undue influence of big donors."

Moral of the story, I don't think Mr. Hasen knows what to think.  He is clearly a well respected member of the political science community, he published a book, which means he can complete a task, and he seems to like to write opinion pieces, which means he has passion, and I too have passion.  But I normally can stick to an opinion for more than 6 months.  So in my opinion, if you want an opinion on the McCutcheon case, look elsewhere.