Thursday, May 6, 2010

Dog For Sale:

Whether you own a dog or not, you must
appreciate the efforts of this owner to sell her dog.

Read the sales pitch below!

Dog For Sale Free to good home. Excellent guard dog. Owner cannot afford to feed him anymore, as there are no more drug pushers, thieves, murderers, or molesters left in the neighborhood for him to eat. Most of them knew Jethro only by his Oriental street name, Ho Lee Schitt.

Saturday, April 10, 2010

"2012" the movie and Global Warming

"2012" the movie. I really didn't know what to expect from the promotional photograph. It showed a Tibetan Monk standing on a cliff, wearing the traditional red robe, and watching a gigantic tidal wave/tsunami sweeping across the mountains headed at him. The actual scene in the movie was even more dramatic. He was in a small concrete structure on top of a mountain and was ringing the bell for the last time as the wave over took him and then the camera switched to the outside as the whole building was swept away. It occurred to me that a Buddhist monk would probably not bother to warn everyone about a disaster they couldn't avoid and wait until the last second to do it.
Several people died in this movie but since it was an apocalyptic film that was to be expected. John Cusack got to play the hero at the end, along with the guy who married his ex-wife, and his son who was not supposed to be there, but saved the day at the last second. The story had a happy ending which we all hope would happen. That man would save at least a few of it's legions, although in the movie, art imitated life in that as it ended up, like the Titanic, the rich got the life boats, and the rest were left to drown, except for a thousand or so who had survived so far, towards the end. One of the elite, a scientist, quotes from past philosophers stating a case for the common people who were being left to die, so, the mother ship of the ARCS, that were built in secret to preserve some selected lives, including mammals that were flown by helicopter to the ships, in a manner that made me realize that a really old man and his sons, on foot in ancient Babylonia would have had a pretty rough time of it, stopped and opened the gates to let the huge hoard on board the main ship, almost causing the certain death of everyone on board.
To those who think Sci-Fi is nonsense, it wouldn't have been a good movie. The special effects were realistic, the arcs themselves were nicely constructed, and the majority of the realism depended on one's ability to recognize landmarks that were constantly shown. There was the Washington Monument, the White House, portions of Yellowstone National Park, the Golden Gate Bridge, downtown Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and many more that were all recognizable enough to lend credibility to how devastating the disaster struck. I found it ironic that one of the characters, played by Oliver Platte, mentioned that the people with the cardboard signs predicting the end of the earth were finally going to be the sane ones. My personal view on that is that they have been saying that for the past 1500 years and haven't been very accurate. Kind of a rough way to spend your life - depending on something that might happen SOME DAY in order to be right. I enjoyed the movie. The excitement of the child actors in the movie made the best part of the dramatic effect. I would recommend the movie for anyone of any age, although I will mention there was a few moments of Adult Language, Adult Action (cataclysmic accidents, not intentional violence), and a few moments of kissing towards the end. I enjoyed it as long as
I watched it for entertainment value.
I happen to be a Buddhist practitioner who believes in humanistic values and we have a more fatalistic attitude. The scene where the Mayan Calendar believers committed a mass suicide was a bit intense to watch. Masses of people lying around dead, surrounding the pyramids and statues felt to me reminiscent of the Jonestown massacre, so I kind of flinched on that but otherwise the violence and deaths were pretty much implied. You saw mostly the ground, buildings, and cars being destroyed instead of bloody violent scenes with people getting killed. I congratulate the producers for that part.
I also view this from the perspective of a parent. If you were going to view this at home with your children, I wouldn't know actually how to tell someone honestly that this couldn't happen. I never gave my kids the false allusion that science was wrong so they wouldn't worry. With what we now know about Global Climate Change and with the 2012 prediction looming in the near future, I couldn't help but think that the timing on this movie, and what seems to me to be a resurgence of doomsday predictions that I have read on the Internet recently, concerning the Mayan Calendar predictions might be connected.
How do I view the predictions?
A)I know from my protestant upbringing that my mother would have stated that no one can know "...the day nor the hour", but it will happen eventually, and as she reminded me, when she was a child, there were predictions about the end coming
soon. We actually had that discussion more than once.
B) with my own Buddhist study and practice from my present life, that I feel so much more relieved as I don't feel it is something that I need to care about. I have learned to be comfortable with "impermanence", meaning that nothing lasts
forever. I will probably be chanting when the big one finally hits, if I am alive to see it. Do I think that would save me from dying? NO WAY, but it would be better than worrying about it. As I watched the masses in front of the Vatican kneeling and praying it occurred to me that at least they were comfortable as they met their end. I personally believe that is the main part of any religion that is important. How we live our lives should reflect our being ready in case we weren't going to be alive tomorrow. I must admit there was times that I was rooting for the disaster and chaos instead of the people - which I realize now was wrong of me but unexpectedly gave me a feeling of immediate gratification. It resulted from some of the characters in the movie which I felt at the moment, should deserve to die. When one scene came up that the children were asleep on the plane, I knew it was telegraphing the future because if it were me and I expected to die, I would have preferred to go in my sleep and would at least considered leaving them asleep. When they all escaped the plane crash except for the pilot, it was not something that surprised me at that point.
If you are looking for something to watch that will entertain and excite you, I recommend "2012", but if you are looking for predictions (or hidden meanings) and a way to know or predict what history is going to be, I would say, "Please don't spoil the mood for the rest of us and put that kind of pressure on the author."
Do I believe that the world will end based on anything that I saw in this movie? Certainly not, but it made a nice premise for a thriller. My own convictions come from the fact that I do actually study things that are reported to be deadly to me. As I think about the author's intent and the timing of his story, and as we still face uneducated debate on global climate anomalies that could come from our being ignorant about how to prepare for the future ecologically (in the past, present, and future), then I want to be on the side of trying not to commit suicide through selfishness and therefore bring everyone else down with me. I have still not heard one bit of evidence that convinces me that there is even any room for debate and as Aldous Huxley said, "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
Even though I am comfortable with my life and eventual death, I have to think of others or I am no better than a suicide bomber who kills a crowd of people while trying desperately to prove a point by publicly ending his own life. (It is bad enough that I have to be splattered with his remains, I didn't sign on to be splattered on someone else for something I may or may not believe in, and they rarely ask your opinion, much less your permission.) I don't feel that I have that right, whether I meant to or
not. Now that the evidence is clear that we need to change our behavior to save, not the planet, but the people on it, then I must try to learn my part in not being part of the problem.

Thursday, March 11, 2010

The Open Source (Sore?) Project

Netscape was a wonderful example of how people who try to view early innovation and success as "evil" or controlling are sadly misguided. Those of you who were aficionados of HTML back before Sun Microsystems and Macromedia were allowed to buy corporate memberships in the HTML source. That was like GM buying controlling share of the Saturn corporation, the car company that was supposed to be the anti-Big Corporation anti-nonsensitive to consumers needs Corporate enemy of the people selling out to their main enemy of what they were designed for because of money. That is what we felt like as HTML programmers who had been taught that the only way to insure that your websites would be done properly was if you did it manually for years, and they sold out to corporate software companies who try to automate the publishing of web pages and I want to be the first to say that the software, no matter who manufactures it, always screws up something eventually and then you have to get someone to scrap your pages, pull your whole site down, lose valuable down time on the server and then redesign (although it is quicker using software) pages that may have the same flaw in it again because no one knows what went into the design. Sometimes it is as simple as cross platform (between browsers) standards that one browser refuses to come up with. We actually had to use a blurb of Javascript called the Netscape Fix on most pages because they didn't want to "imitate" Internet Explorer by allowing us to use Cascading Style Sheets and actually had the gall to ask why we needed it. It is NOW THE STANDARD WAY THAT SOFTWARE USES TO DESIGN PAGES IN THE BACKGROUND, BUT NETSCAPE HAD TO ASK WHICH PART OF IT WE FOUND NECESSARY. It would be comparable to an instant oatmeal company asking, "Do you really need flavors and which ones do you think are really necessary since we don't want to implement anything too close to the actual work involved in producing something like what Quaker does." instead of trying to copy them as closely as possible to the letter. When I wrote to the guy from Netscape open source project and told him ALL OF IT! he actually wrote back and asked why it was necessary. I wrote back and told him that I could design pages the way I wanted to and that Netscape was so out of whack with their page design that we have to develop javascript fixes to position the text where we wanted it and he acted like he didn't understand the importance of web design to a web designer. That is the problem with IT people. They don't have an artistic bone in their bodies and as long as they can use templates that someone like me designed, they think they are cutting edge. Programming doesn't make a website popular or functional, common sense does. I had to point this out to several advertising people. They are really clueless as to what catches some one's eye unless it is in print. And programmers have never been taught about how to make something user friendly or pleasing to look at. They think in terms of program functions and don't realise if the site looks like two sixth graders built in using Netscape Gold, then, it looks unappealing and most people leave the site to find something they like. It is almost like most people are trying to find a website that is like a video game to entertain them instead of just informing them. You will notice that IBM never does sales presentation in front of a three ring circus operating behind them. Why not, too much distraction which forces you to lose the message. That is why web design is NOT GRAPHIC DESIGN, although some of that is necessary to attract users, it is about the art of designing information architecture. How the text falls on the page, readability and attraction of everything from the background graphics, colors, and the links. Most web pages are designed now so that someone can print a version of it out as well. That requires the functionality design of parts that are usable in print, on cell phones, and small screens on other electronic media. Even the name of Flash was a self fulfilling prophecy. It was a flash in the pan. If you haven't figured out yet that the graphics that download too slowly with the page using either a real slow message that says, "Loading, Loading, Loading..." while you grow a beard or the ever so popular revolving dot that spins like a chasing Christmas light display gone bad, but isn't as offensive as their predecessors is a sign of the Flash Player, which is the last we shall see of that bigone era. At one time everything the corporate HR people wanted was to be designed in Flash. Now they hate it which is an example of how much customers know about what they truly want.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Comedy Central Blocks Signon or Registration

The comedy central website decided tonight that it was too much trouble for people to log in and make comments, evidently since they disabled the ability to log in or register in order to comment after posting a video with a masterfully ignorant book author of the book entitled "Courting Disaster: How the CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack" by Mark Thiessen. that was such an ignorant statement that I was glad Stewart came on the show and let him embarrass himself. After Jon asked him, "Then it is ok for them to waterboard our people..." and Thiessen immediately without a blink fired off, "NO!" and Jon gave his patented "Scooby Doo" look with eyes wide that says, "HOOOUUUUAAAMMM?" as he used to verbalize, Thiessen seem to realise early on that he was through, but somehow Stewart got him to jump right in there and expose the rest of his flawed thinking and rationalisations. That point in itself is so reticent of how the Right rationalizes EVERYTHING they do wrong. So, because of the same type of technicalities that he is whining about the "Left" when it was actually the Supreme Court and Congress made them stop, those type of technicalities like whose side we are on and whether or not we call ourselves a militant combatant or we are termed by him to be a "terrorist" and because one person who was waterboarded thanked them, since that allowed him to betray his country because now he can say he was tortured, made all the difference to his whole argument. "He led us to this guy, who led us to this guy, who led us to this guy." and they were all "plotting" terrorist attacks that we don't know for sure they were capable of carrying out or whether they surrendered and turned themselves in to receive better treatment than if they had been captured militarily. (with the possibility of getting shot)
But, he feels that somehow if America uses waterboarding it isn't toture but when they do it to our troops it is.
And with the guy who gave up his "co conspirator", how do we know he wasn't wanting to tell what he knew? Since we stopped the supposed plots before they happened, how do we know for sure that they would have carried them out? And as Jon Stewart pointed out he can't say for sure we wouldn't have stopped them another way. Thiessen sounded Stupid and the only thing that pisses me off is that Stewart didn't put him to task for the idiotic statement that "Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack". This is the kind of idiotic rightwing slanderous statement that can only lead to asking him to prove that Barack Obama doesn't care about the safety of U.S. Citizens. He asked Stewart if he thought it wasn't the president's job to keep America safe and Jon replied, "Don't you think that any president of the United States wants to keep America safe?" He didn't answer and asked again, "Don't you think that is his job?" Stewart replied, "Well, no, as far as I know he is supposed to preserve the constitution." Then Jon said, "You are trying to talk about allowing waterboarding as is we have no other means and I can argue that I could treat someone with loving kindness and he thanked me and gave me information."
The fact that Mark Thiessen couldn't make a point without a lot of conjecture that he tried to say was fact was simple. So, in the next speech we see him make, evidently he prepped the guy who introduced him to say, "Fact are facts and you can't get around facts. A lot of people are disputing them but they are facts..." It was stupid and transparent. Opinions aren't facts. There wouldn't be any controversy if it was a fact. I personally think all the people who advocate waterboarding should be required by the court to undergo the same form of treatment to show that it wasn't really torture and then we could go with their opinion.
And of course on his website he has statements from the guys who authorized torture and the first was Dick Cheney. That is the committee investigating itself and finding nothing wrong again, except NO ONE ELSE including congress agreed, so Cheney's statement makes it sound all the stupider. "...Marc Thiessen knows, in ways that few others do, just how effective, heroic, and morally justified were the interrogators who kept this nation safe after 9/11. If you want to know what really happened behind the scenes at the CIA interrogation sites or at Guantanamo Bay, you simply must read this book." —Dick Cheney
Of course the guy who ordered the torture would say that. Stupid. I think Cheney should be waterboarded.

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Can These People Hear Themselves?

I have become what most people would call the most liberal form of non-conformist. Some people would state that it is the fault of organisations that promote liberal movements. Actually, that couldn't be further from the truth. The Conservatives have driven me to what I am, instead. I am still under the belief that some people in the public eye act as what is known as a "Devil's Advocate", making statements to make people think. Then there are others who are just plain stupid. How can anyone be so insensitive to the rest of the world and so selfiish? When I look at news (which I am trying to avoid but it keeps jumping up in front of me) I see more natural disasters in this period than have happened in a long time. Why? Nature. We haven't had any in a while and with Global Warming, and the oceans getting shallower, whole species of animals going extinct, and so much pollution that people who have never smoked a cigarette in their lives are dying from lung cancer from being one of those 'outdoor' type of people in the city. The fact that money is being made is inevitably part and parcel of all this. Money, property, and prestige will make a nice person corrupt. Yesterday a couple of stories that I can't believe came up on the news. They were about statements made by Pat Roberts and Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh is a prime example of what I was told as a child in the expression, "The most dangerous person in the world is a fool." The same applies to Pat Roberts, but I will explain my feelings on that later. Limbaugh is dangerous like a guy in a theater who yells fire and gets people trampled to death. A lot of people listen to him and enjoy everything he says. The same type of people usually like professional wrestling and have taught themselves to believe it is real, just so they can be entertained. That is the type of person Limbaugh is. He thinks that everything he says doesn't have an impact or at least he thinks any impact he has is not a negative one. I wonder how one turns their brain off when they are speaking like he does. I personally think Rush Limbaugh would be better off NOT trying to make Obama look bad since he is so stupidly WRONG about his details repeatedly that he only ends up making himself look stupider.
Recently the tragedy of the earthquake in Haiti was broadcast on the internet by the White House. Michele Obama came on the news feed clip and asked people to send money to the Red Cross at their corporate text feed number. The only message about donations is "... •Donate $10 to the Red Cross to be charged to your cell phone bill by texting "HAITI" to "90999 ..." and I want to add that FOX NEWS, and several of the conservative websites and news channel sites have posted the same number. But Mr. Limbaugh asked the question, "How do you know your donation is going to the Red Cross?" ("Uh, because that's where we are sending it? Directly to the Red Cross, not The White House.) This insinuates that the Obama administration and Michele Obama are skimming or stealing money from a relief effort. He also asked the question, "How do you know your phone number isn't going to end up on an Obama Donation email list or mailing list? This is to say that Shawn Hannity and Fox News are telling people to donate money to a white house money funneling scam. When told to SHUT THE F**K UP, he said, "I didn't say that people shouldn't donate money!" No, but he implied that the donation effort was a money scam. I submit that Rush Limbaugh thinks that way because that is what HE DOES! A few thousand people send money to Rush Limbaugh to support causes he makes up and announces over the radio. Does all of the money go to support those causes? How do we know? We do know we can find out easy enough. Let's actually INVESTIGATE without running our mouth like an idiot, and at I see that the same message from Michelle Obama is on their website. Wow, what a concept, huh? They must have asked her to make that message, ya' think? Or do you think the Red Cross is scamming themselves? Their donation online page says that they have had such a HUGE volume of charitable acts by American Citizens that it will take at least 24 hours to send you an email receipt.
Now, a bit about Pat Roberts from "The 700 Club" which obviously isn't concerning his IQ points. May I say just one thing about him, I think this guy should have been wearing a tin foil hat so we could tell who he was a long time ago. Back in the day he used to say things that were a little off. This last one was so off base I couldn't believe it. He actually said that Haiti had an earthquake because they made a pact with the devil to get out from under the heel of the French. Let me repeat that, Pat Roberts thinks that the earthquake in Haiti, which anyone who actually HAS studied anything about Geology can tell you is from the tectonic plates below the surface of the earth shifting. If you want to know why the earthquake ACTUALLY happened, here is the link to the real explanation of why the earthquake in Haiti happened. Or you can try to believe Pat Roberts' version. But, why did the natural disasters near where he lives happen?
This brings me to another point which I believe is important. When are Christians going to quit ignoring science and start ignoring the "village wise man" thinking? In ancient times we had no form of science. Back then, religion was man's way to explain science. Before people knew about the forces of the universe and our planet, we would ask what things were and why they happened. We would go to the oldest person since he was around longer, we assumed he knew. Today, some people still do the same thing. On this occasion they asked the village idiot, it seems. Men of religion have been explaining science with wild stories born in their imagination. That is the parent of all mythology and most religions are full of mythology. The statement that Satan, God, or any other deity was responsible for a natural occurrance in nature that we have scientific evidence of seems to have completely slipped his mind. Do you think the seismographic institutes checked with God to document their reports? When you let a guy think he is "inspired by God" to always give you the right answer, then he ends up getting so full of himself that he makes some stupid statement like this. Have a nice day.
We all need to quit going to the village wise man for answers, it isn't good for him either, obviously.
Arizona Mildman View
P.S. I should have entitled this "Dumb and Dumber". Dumber and Dumbest?

Friday, December 4, 2009

How Does This Woman Live With Herself?

How Do These People Live With Themselves?Posted by Arizona Mildman on December 4, 2009 at 6:30am
It just makes me want to ask, "Are all Republicans idiots?" Can anyone in their right mind NOT be embarrassed by this idiotic statement. The Republican party has become like the drunk kid who came to your party and started trying to tell everyone how much he loved them and making such an ass of himself that when someone told him how he acted last night he is afraid to face anyone. But they don't seem to have any shame. They say something ridiculous and just don't know how to admit it was a stupid thing to say. They will say almost anything. It would be like me, after deciding I didn't like the local newspaper, going on television and telling the news reporters on national television that I actually caught Bubonic Plague from reading it. And then smiling at the camera and calling them "My friends" again for the three hundredth time. Are they so afraid to let anything decent for the America Public pass in congress that they have to lie about it, using fairy tales and complete fabrication? I am beginning to realise that they really do hate poor people. Republicans are not all rich, but they all think that somehow passing laws that benefit only rich people are somehow going to wash back on them. They keep trying to hope for the rich guys of this nation to become total philanthropists and start giving away money. That is what trickle down stood for, by the way. Like some rich person is carrying two arm loads of money in a manner that is going to allow some of it to trickle out of his arms so we can all share it.
The point they don't understand is unlimited greed. People like John McCain have more money than he or his family could ever spend and it isn't enough. He worries about paying his fair share of taxes so badly that he is ready to lie and completely lose the trust of the whole American Public to do it. After they screwed him over in the 2000 presidential campaign, he still sucks up to them as if he has no pride. He isn't a maverick, he is a Rebootlick.
Republican Congresswoman Virginia Foxx of North Carolina said that health care reform is more dangerous than any terrorist in the United States today. Will someone send a real terrorist to this woman's house, please? This was probably the stupidest statement I have heard since Jerry Falwell made his comment about why God made 9-11 happen. How much money are the insurance lobbies paying this woman? Is she just on a straight salary or does she get a commission check like most actors?
Actually the most dangerous thing is this woman making statements like this on National Television. The idea that someone can say something like this and not have to retract their statement shows how tabloids like the National Enquirer are still in business. I am proud to say that I am not from North Carolina. Also, let me restate that all of the members of congress WANTED THIS PLAN for themselves, just not for everyone else. They think healthcare is a privelege. I would hope the next time her house catches on fire that someone from her local fire department would ask her to first look up the deductable on her home owners' insurance before they continue with her reporting the fire since it might not really be worth their while.
Has anyone seen this woman's picture? She looks like a drunken school teacher. She is obviously either on the trough of the health care insurance lobbies or lost her mind, so the picture of her grinning like an idiot on" target="_blank">her web page after saying some idiotic thing like that only worsens my impression of her.
The thing that really scares me is that anyone might hear her and think since they heard it on television and since she has a job in congress that she actually believes that and knows what she is talking about. Either I hear a retraction from this woman or I am going to start a campaign to get some lawyers to send a team to investigate and put her under observation to see if she is crazy or just greedy and taking money from the insurance companies. Some people will listen to anything a member of their party says. Those same kind of people are the type who believe Professional Wrestling is real, also.
I was going to say we should send her an oscar award, but then I realised, she isn't that good of an actor. She didn't even for a second make me think she might have a point. She over exagerated whatever she was trying to say and in my opinion, should come on TV and apologise or expect everyone in the public, from now on, to question everything she says. The people of her state, especially the Republicans should demand that she apologise. If she lies about something this important that isn't any of her business, how many thousands of other things is she corrupt about? If I was from North Carolina, I would be embarrassed to admit that I voted for her.

Saturday, October 10, 2009

My Reply to NBC NEWS

I am going to post this on my blog entitled, "Being Allergic to Stupid" for obvious reasons. The president of the United States was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for opening the door to peace and open negotiations rather than cold war politics and anti-diplomatic policies like some of the past presidents of the U.S. have done. I am living in a world where the very thing some people have for years praised as an honorable achievement, and instead our news media, all of them, have chosen to be "STUPID". I am not saying this lightly.
When President Obama said that the Massachusettes Police arrested Professor Gates for something "...stupid", he was forced to apologise. I am not going to apologise to anyone. I wish I had the money to get T-Shirts printed up that say, "The American News Media Is Stupid". To say that the president is getting an award for nothing is to say that he didn't take any action. I guess being diplomatic and reaching out to other countries to talk and open a discourse that could keep us from facing another war is not an action to them either. This is the problem with the way some people see things in this country. The fact that they can't see that someone containing themselves, holding their tongue, being polite, and not getting angry and rude is not doing anything. I guess the only thing some people see as an action is by doing something outlandish. Should we give a prize to Kayne West for what he did at the awards show? He did something. It was wrong, but it was something. They insinuate that since he didn't do anything like start a war, that his contribution is worthless. I guess by not throwing our trash in the street and instead keeping it collected and in a place where it isn't a health hazzard or an eyesore is worthless also, since we aren't really doing anything but being a good citizen and following our desire to keep things more neat and orderly, which, I guess isn't worth much. The kind of people who think being purposely offensive and politically incorrect is fashionable died with the George Bush "beer bash/barbecues". Okay, let's compare his actions with the same administration. Yes, I can see, after what they are used to seeing from the White House, this seems like nothing. Not going on TV and telling the whole world we want to stand alone in a war we shouldn't have been involved in without the cooperation and approval of the United Nations, or sending troops to a place that DIDN'T ATTACK US, based on fictional information is not doing anything.
I am involved with an organisation that I am proud to say is conciously trying to promote peace and world interaction between the whole planet instead of selfishly trying to be involved in the day to day self-centered behavior most people engage in. The fact that we had a president that offended the whole United Nations, that also talked tough on the news but didn't do anything himself except "act tough" and become offensive to all of Europe, Asia, and everyone besides the Arabs seems to have hurt us politically. If undoing the ignorance and rude offensiveness isn't respected as doing something, then I give up on this country's news media. The peacock channel tonight was talking about nonsense and then mentioned this story with the comment that the president was receiving an award that he didn't do anything for and instead it was for what he hadn't done. If not doing something offensive and stupid doesn't count, then I guess all of the courts, hospitals, police agencies, and local governments trying to maintain good health and sanity isn't worth anything either.
Recently, I heard that some of the news media is complaining that they are losing business. If this is an example of how they plan to maintain a relationship with the public, then, I will welcome their departure. The only thing most of them have been actively doing lately is spreading fear, anger, and politically incorrect, unpopular sentiments from all the people that they report. We have congressmen shouting accusations at the president on national television and instead of showing that they care about right and wrong, they act like this is up to him to decide what is rude. They, in my opinion, are supposed to tell us what is wrong, and also report things that are right. They are human also, but they don't need to keep their stories resigned to the bottom of the barrel. I don't buy newspapers, since they now sell their opinions or "versions of what really happened" to the highest bidder. Most cable news is run by corporations that only allow news casters to let you hear the version that is the latest proganda story. The amount of lies and misinformation that is spread through the supposed news is now at an all time high. If we can't trust what they say, what good are they? They are selling reported stories that are news, they are selling opinions and editorialism that is worthless to the average person. I think I will email the white house and thank the president for not doing anything STUPID long enough to get an award. In a way, I can see how some people might feel we deserve that, after seeing how we were acting for the eight years previous.

Saturday, August 1, 2009


Someone recently reminded me of something I already knew, which is that WikiPedia is a collaborative Open Source Project for information. I wish to be the first to say that I was skeptical about them from the beginning. Wikipedia is the first place I go for facts because of one principle. They do have people who volunteer information but all of the information is reviewed both by the site administrators and the authors. One can be a WikiPedia Author just for signing up, but their Terms of Service are really strict and if you are caught providing false information or opinions that are nonresearchable, they will remove your content and send you an email explaining why they deleted your content and gently reminding you if you do this a few times instead of this once, they are ready to revoke your authority to be an author with no way to sign in. I watch when a NEWS story comes on the regular news and can pretty much figure after all the editing is over, which it really never is, that they have more of an accurate story than most mainstream media. But usually within two days to a week they have an article that can be relied on and if anyone thinks it is incorrect, erroneous, or slighted they can vote to have it removed.

There whole list of what WikiPedia is and is not is here:
Wikipedia policy
Global principles
What Wikipedia is not
Ignore all rules
Content standards
Neutral point of view
No original research
Contents [hide]
1 Style and format
1.1 Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia
2 Content
2.1 Wikipedia is not a dictionary
2.2 Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought
2.3 Wikipedia is not a soapbox
2.4 Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files
2.5 Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site
2.6 Wikipedia is not a directory
2.7 Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal
2.8 Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
2.9 Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
2.10 Wikipedia is not censored
3 Community
3.1 Wikipedia is not a democracy
3.2 Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy
3.3 Wikipedia is not a battleground
3.4 Wikipedia is not an anarchy
3.5 Wikipedia is not your web host
4 And finally...
5 When you wonder what to do
6 See also
7 Notes
8 Similar official policies on sister projects

Biographies of living persons
Naming conventions
Working with others
No personal attacks
No legal threats
Dispute resolution
List of policies
List of guidelines
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. Therefore, there are certain things that Wikipedia is not.

Monday, July 20, 2009

I love Streaming Video

I watch a lot of streaming video on Hulu and the other video websites. It is easier than TV since I can stop it and come back at any time. Good selection of movies out there and a lot of TV shows that I wouldn't have had a chance to see at all if it weren't for this new feature.
Here is an example of one of my favorites, from the series Royal Pains: