I just wanted to apologize to Rumpleteazer of Brainiax Blog for my comments that offended her. My comments weren't made with the intention of offending her. We were having a discussion about politics, and more specificly voting. It is a topic that I am passionate about and one that she was beginning to get excited about. I hope my comments did not do anything to extinguish that excitement...that's exactly what we don't need...fewer voters. Again, I am sorry RT.
When I started this blog, I assumed that I would be and even intended to be offensive. There are a great many topics out there that frustrate me, and I initially thought I would just let it all hang out and to heck with everyone else. Then I realized that by being offensive, it does little to really get people to start thinking about a topic. Being offensive evokes emotions and heated exchanges, which can be good, but it is most often irrationally driven because of the emotions running so high.
I still want to have my say about all the topics that frustrate me, but I am trying hard to be as logical and straight forward as possible. I will never intentionally offend a specific person, though I can not help if my views, in general, are offensive to some people. I must be true to myself, yet at the same time, I want to always be open to changing my mind and reshaping my views on something.
I don't make the assumption that I have all the answers or that my view is the best view. I welcome many different perspectives on any topic...I can't promise that it will change my mind, but I will always listen to other's point of view. So while RT won't be the last person I offend, I can say that, just like in her situation, it won't be intentional.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Oh Hillary, what a futile attempt at family values...
Hillary Clinton recently led the charge to remove a video game with racy content from store shelves. I am not suggesting that the video game, Grand Theft Auto:San Andreas, shouldn't be removed, or at least have its rating changed, but seriously, the game is centered around gang violence and even romantacizes cars ramming into police cars. Is there any way that the game should have been put on the shelves without an Adult Only rating anyway?
Anyone buying this game knew the history of Grand Theft Auto and knew it was only a matter of time before sexual explicit scenes were in the game, whether they were part of the game in general or hidden within the game to be "unlocked". What's sad is that the ESRB, the party responsible for rating video games, should have known it too.
But I digress. Mrs. Clinton is quoted in the USA Today as saying, "So many parents already feel like they are fighting a battle against violence and sexually explicit material with their hands tied behind their backs."
Is that really true? Does Mrs. Clinton really speak for "many parents"? If that is true, then "many parents" must have let their kids take over their household. Do parents not have the ability to refuse to buy violent and sexually explicit material? Or is the more appropriate question, do parents lack the desire to be responsible for shaping the identity of their children?
Let's just get to the meat of the problem. The fact is that parents aren't monitoring their children's activities enough. I can guarantee that when I was in my youth, which wasn't too long ago, there is no way that I would have been allowed to play a game such as Grand Theft Auto. Are we really that much busier than our parents were? My parents certainly worked their fingers to the bone, yet still had time for ball games, school activities, monitoring extra curricular activities, and still had time to discuss their concerns that involved sex, drugs, or alcohol.
But I recognize society is changing. We likely aren't busier than our parents; it's just a different kind of busy. We are too busy filtering scads of spam email, figuring out what different codes mean that our kids are using in chat rooms, and worrying about layoffs that have run rampant in America today.
If Hillary Rodham Clinton wants to impress me, try taking on spam email to free up hours wasted per week. That way parents can free up time to spend with their families and monitor what video games their kids are playing. It's ridiculous how much irrelavent emails we get. If they can come up with a federal no-call registry, how about simply creating a federal no-email registry. Ok, Ok, so many spam emails originate from outside the United States, but isn't that something that a Senator should be figuring out how to fix, rather than being involved in Party Politics?
Of course, again, the issue always comes down to...a Senator, or any public official, will only accomplish what we demand that they accomplish. It's time that we recognize that we have the power. We need to take the time to let our elected officals know what we expect of them. Many have emails to contact them. If that's the case, perhaps we should all just forward our spam to them. Eventually them will have to take action when they are innundated with spam.
Anyone buying this game knew the history of Grand Theft Auto and knew it was only a matter of time before sexual explicit scenes were in the game, whether they were part of the game in general or hidden within the game to be "unlocked". What's sad is that the ESRB, the party responsible for rating video games, should have known it too.
But I digress. Mrs. Clinton is quoted in the USA Today as saying, "So many parents already feel like they are fighting a battle against violence and sexually explicit material with their hands tied behind their backs."
Is that really true? Does Mrs. Clinton really speak for "many parents"? If that is true, then "many parents" must have let their kids take over their household. Do parents not have the ability to refuse to buy violent and sexually explicit material? Or is the more appropriate question, do parents lack the desire to be responsible for shaping the identity of their children?
Let's just get to the meat of the problem. The fact is that parents aren't monitoring their children's activities enough. I can guarantee that when I was in my youth, which wasn't too long ago, there is no way that I would have been allowed to play a game such as Grand Theft Auto. Are we really that much busier than our parents were? My parents certainly worked their fingers to the bone, yet still had time for ball games, school activities, monitoring extra curricular activities, and still had time to discuss their concerns that involved sex, drugs, or alcohol.
But I recognize society is changing. We likely aren't busier than our parents; it's just a different kind of busy. We are too busy filtering scads of spam email, figuring out what different codes mean that our kids are using in chat rooms, and worrying about layoffs that have run rampant in America today.
If Hillary Rodham Clinton wants to impress me, try taking on spam email to free up hours wasted per week. That way parents can free up time to spend with their families and monitor what video games their kids are playing. It's ridiculous how much irrelavent emails we get. If they can come up with a federal no-call registry, how about simply creating a federal no-email registry. Ok, Ok, so many spam emails originate from outside the United States, but isn't that something that a Senator should be figuring out how to fix, rather than being involved in Party Politics?
Of course, again, the issue always comes down to...a Senator, or any public official, will only accomplish what we demand that they accomplish. It's time that we recognize that we have the power. We need to take the time to let our elected officals know what we expect of them. Many have emails to contact them. If that's the case, perhaps we should all just forward our spam to them. Eventually them will have to take action when they are innundated with spam.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Banning an entire breed of dog?
I was surfing the web the other night, and came across a site where a suggestion is made to ban the breed of Pit Bulls. Needless to say, I have an opinion on the topic, and rather than take up LOTS of space replying to the comment that I saw, I figured that I would post my thoughts here and leave a link in the comment box for people to come here for my opinion if they so desired.
I'll do best to restrain myself here, but one person that commented on the suggestion, made a highly ridiculous suggestion that ONLY ONE KIND OF PERSON buys a pit bull. Such a notion is off the wall and extremist.
But I digress to my thoughts on banning pit bulls. I can say that it is understandable to be frightened of a pit bull. I'll also take extreme caution when around one and will certainly clear the area immediately if one is around when I have my children with me.
What I don't get is how someone can claim to be an animal advocate, admit that many IDIOTS mistreat pit bulls, and even described the breed caringly and lovingly, and then suggest that the BREED should be banned. And if one would argue that it should be banned in even one State, then they must believe that the breed should be banned in the entire United States...and throughout the world for that matter. After all, surely someone wouldn't believe that a pit bull was too violent to be allowed in one state, but it's ok to have the violent beast in other states or parts of the world. So to make an arguement to ban a breed in one state is to argue for it's extinction!
So it just isn't possible for someone to call themselves an animal advocate but call for a ban on an animal, which is logically congruent to extinction.
A great person has described children and pets as God's pure innocents. I have read no suggestions to the contrary. In fact, many say that the breed is not at fault...SO why eliminate the breed??!!
Is that logical? How's this for logic? Humans murder. Murder is horrific. Thus, all humans should be banned. It fits the exact same argument posed for the elimination of pit bulls.
My suggestion, since I know people that own pit bulls that don't fit into the category of ONE KIND OF PERSON, is that pet ownership should be regulated, if not in all breeds, certainly ones that are prone to miscreant owners.
One comment that I will absolutely agree with is that any breed that is half bred with a Wolf, should be banned. As anyone knows, Wolves are more wild than any pet on earth could imagine, even a pit bull. Wild animals have an entirely different set of engrained behavior and survival skills that have no business trying to be tamed. Oh sure, there are all kinds of wild animals in captivity used as pets, but as Roy Horn can attest to, at any second, any wild animal can be overcome with it's own engrained instincts and anything in it's way can be killed quickly.
So ban animals as pets that have wild instincts in them? Yes! But ban pets, such as pit bulls, who have been marred by huge amounts of bad publicity, largely due to owners with evil intentions? Absolutely NOT!
I'll do best to restrain myself here, but one person that commented on the suggestion, made a highly ridiculous suggestion that ONLY ONE KIND OF PERSON buys a pit bull. Such a notion is off the wall and extremist.
But I digress to my thoughts on banning pit bulls. I can say that it is understandable to be frightened of a pit bull. I'll also take extreme caution when around one and will certainly clear the area immediately if one is around when I have my children with me.
What I don't get is how someone can claim to be an animal advocate, admit that many IDIOTS mistreat pit bulls, and even described the breed caringly and lovingly, and then suggest that the BREED should be banned. And if one would argue that it should be banned in even one State, then they must believe that the breed should be banned in the entire United States...and throughout the world for that matter. After all, surely someone wouldn't believe that a pit bull was too violent to be allowed in one state, but it's ok to have the violent beast in other states or parts of the world. So to make an arguement to ban a breed in one state is to argue for it's extinction!
So it just isn't possible for someone to call themselves an animal advocate but call for a ban on an animal, which is logically congruent to extinction.
A great person has described children and pets as God's pure innocents. I have read no suggestions to the contrary. In fact, many say that the breed is not at fault...SO why eliminate the breed??!!
Is that logical? How's this for logic? Humans murder. Murder is horrific. Thus, all humans should be banned. It fits the exact same argument posed for the elimination of pit bulls.
My suggestion, since I know people that own pit bulls that don't fit into the category of ONE KIND OF PERSON, is that pet ownership should be regulated, if not in all breeds, certainly ones that are prone to miscreant owners.
One comment that I will absolutely agree with is that any breed that is half bred with a Wolf, should be banned. As anyone knows, Wolves are more wild than any pet on earth could imagine, even a pit bull. Wild animals have an entirely different set of engrained behavior and survival skills that have no business trying to be tamed. Oh sure, there are all kinds of wild animals in captivity used as pets, but as Roy Horn can attest to, at any second, any wild animal can be overcome with it's own engrained instincts and anything in it's way can be killed quickly.
So ban animals as pets that have wild instincts in them? Yes! But ban pets, such as pit bulls, who have been marred by huge amounts of bad publicity, largely due to owners with evil intentions? Absolutely NOT!
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Changes at the Daily Show?!
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is a great show, which recently changed studios, and along with its studio change, may have made a format change. In the second show in the new studio, Jon Stewart, the show's host, had a rather uncharacteristic interview with Bernard Goldberg. Jon, rather than be his affable self that is normally seen during his interviews, changed his demeanor, at least for this interview with Mr. Goldberg.
Mr. Goldberg was on the show to promote his book, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (And Al Frankton is #37), which may be the primary reason for Jon Stewart's interview style change. It remains to be seen if this was an isolated occurance by Jon Stewart, or if he will become more opinionated during more of his interviews. Nevertheless, Jon Stewart made several pointed comments that I must take issue with.
The interview started off as one would typically expect from Jon, but then as the discussion turned towards that of our culture becoming incressingly crass and vulgar. Jon's point was that we are a capitalistic society and that our culture is bound to continuly become more crass. It's at that point where Jon started to lose me. I don't see where being capitalists has anything to do with being crass or vulgar. That simply has to do with us being a free society...it has nothing to do with the fact that anyone can start a business and make a go of it with little government intervention.
Jon speaks about everyone in Mr. Goldberg's book as being powerless and that the people in power, referring to those in Washington DC, are creating the problems in American, as opposed to Barbara Streistand, who is ranked in Mr. Goldberg's book.
The issue that I have with that view, is that I think it's foolish to think that Al Frankton, for instance, is powerless. Sure, he can't go out and write a law, but a single Senator can't do that either. It takes a collective unit to influence power and culture, and Al Frankton, like it or not, has people that believe exactly as he does, and they make up a collective unit that has and creates power.
I think that Jon highly underestimates the power that culture has on society and Washington DC. There are countless laws passed because of cultural pressures. The ones with the real power are AMERICANS. Everyday folk, like you or I, are the ones that have the power to get rid of dirty or nonperforming politicians.
The real shame is that not all Americans realize the power they have...or they try to minimize it. They write it off, saying that they are only one vote, and one vote won't make a difference. The thing is...it only takes one time...one vote creates involvement...involvement begats further involvement. Involvement creates a need for information, information creates discussions and conversations with friends, families, and neighbors...and before you know it, you are changing the culture around you without even realizing it...and as culture changes, power changes.
So I hope that Jon takes a step back and rethings the power of culture...because whether he believes it or not...and whether he likes it or not...Jon Stewart has power...his show is watched by millions, and his show shapes people's opinions on subjects..which in and of itself, is power.
I love Jon to death...and I watch his show not to pick it apart as I have done above. But when there is something that merrits a conversation, I will chime in. Congratulations on all your success Jon! Keep up the great job!
Mr. Goldberg was on the show to promote his book, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (And Al Frankton is #37), which may be the primary reason for Jon Stewart's interview style change. It remains to be seen if this was an isolated occurance by Jon Stewart, or if he will become more opinionated during more of his interviews. Nevertheless, Jon Stewart made several pointed comments that I must take issue with.
The interview started off as one would typically expect from Jon, but then as the discussion turned towards that of our culture becoming incressingly crass and vulgar. Jon's point was that we are a capitalistic society and that our culture is bound to continuly become more crass. It's at that point where Jon started to lose me. I don't see where being capitalists has anything to do with being crass or vulgar. That simply has to do with us being a free society...it has nothing to do with the fact that anyone can start a business and make a go of it with little government intervention.
Jon speaks about everyone in Mr. Goldberg's book as being powerless and that the people in power, referring to those in Washington DC, are creating the problems in American, as opposed to Barbara Streistand, who is ranked in Mr. Goldberg's book.
The issue that I have with that view, is that I think it's foolish to think that Al Frankton, for instance, is powerless. Sure, he can't go out and write a law, but a single Senator can't do that either. It takes a collective unit to influence power and culture, and Al Frankton, like it or not, has people that believe exactly as he does, and they make up a collective unit that has and creates power.
I think that Jon highly underestimates the power that culture has on society and Washington DC. There are countless laws passed because of cultural pressures. The ones with the real power are AMERICANS. Everyday folk, like you or I, are the ones that have the power to get rid of dirty or nonperforming politicians.
The real shame is that not all Americans realize the power they have...or they try to minimize it. They write it off, saying that they are only one vote, and one vote won't make a difference. The thing is...it only takes one time...one vote creates involvement...involvement begats further involvement. Involvement creates a need for information, information creates discussions and conversations with friends, families, and neighbors...and before you know it, you are changing the culture around you without even realizing it...and as culture changes, power changes.
So I hope that Jon takes a step back and rethings the power of culture...because whether he believes it or not...and whether he likes it or not...Jon Stewart has power...his show is watched by millions, and his show shapes people's opinions on subjects..which in and of itself, is power.
I love Jon to death...and I watch his show not to pick it apart as I have done above. But when there is something that merrits a conversation, I will chime in. Congratulations on all your success Jon! Keep up the great job!
Starting At Home
Well, I have to say that when I moved to Indiana, I was less than enthralled with the state. How can anyone be impressed with a state that refused to join most of the rest of the United States in Daylight Savings Time? It was ludicrous trying to figure out the time relation to the rest of your business associates throughout the world.
The number one argument to keep a standard time format? "It makes us unique". WHAT?! UNIQUE?!?! What kind of argument is that? But some how that argument stuck for the first 4 years that I lived in Indiana. Which is to say that past four years...who knows how long that argument held off progress in the past.
Every year, the topic of Daylight Savings would come up, and every year, no one could agree. My goodness people, if that's not a business repellent, I don't know what is. What business in their right mind would move to a state in which their business partners and customers would be utterly confused as to when was an appropriate time to do business?
I tell you what, Governor O'Bannon and Governor Kearnen never had my respect. Neither of them would make a statement about their beliefs on the topic, one way or the other. Probably because their best argument was, "It makes us Unique."
At least "My Man Mitch" Daniels got it done. He's has issues too, but at least the number one reason not to come to Indiana, is now history.
The number one argument to keep a standard time format? "It makes us unique". WHAT?! UNIQUE?!?! What kind of argument is that? But some how that argument stuck for the first 4 years that I lived in Indiana. Which is to say that past four years...who knows how long that argument held off progress in the past.
Every year, the topic of Daylight Savings would come up, and every year, no one could agree. My goodness people, if that's not a business repellent, I don't know what is. What business in their right mind would move to a state in which their business partners and customers would be utterly confused as to when was an appropriate time to do business?
I tell you what, Governor O'Bannon and Governor Kearnen never had my respect. Neither of them would make a statement about their beliefs on the topic, one way or the other. Probably because their best argument was, "It makes us Unique."
At least "My Man Mitch" Daniels got it done. He's has issues too, but at least the number one reason not to come to Indiana, is now history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
