Perpetuating the Cycle of Hate

I'm watching the show Hard Time right now.

It opens the world of a Georgia Correction Facility like a documentary on wild animals. Talking about the structure, discipline, and control the warden and his officers have over Georgia's toughest. I personally found it easy to say out of jail, but then again I'm really lucky. The most interesting case is this inmate named Jackson who is nothing but a failed burglar. Now he is in prison, understandably, where they have in escrow inmates who they do not know security risks. Ranging from murderers to petty thieves are thrown in the same prison, the same dorm block, the same jail cell. From lifers to people just passing through, the gamut of ppsychosis and behavior problems are as diverse as the prisoners themselves.

Jackson, with an 8 year old daughter, has only five years of time to do. He mentions on air that he just wants out of there and see his daughter again. So when he goes to the prison store (store? yeah from outside given money they can buy treats) he gets confronted by a fellow who gave him two options.

1. Give in and let the prisoner his shwag (And be known as a doormat).
2. Wait for the prisoner to come back with his buds to take by force (And greatly extend his stay).

He did the worst choice (apparently) and that was go to the guards, marking him to ALL of the inmates.



I guess what I don't understand is that is our system intrinsically designed for these people to fail and stay longer? If the answer is yes, then it's costing us taxpayers and we should probably ask for something else. Are these people doing it to themselves? Oh yeah. I've watched enough of these kind of documentaries to get the feeling that they prefer to gnaw on each other like animals then to reform. But what about the ones who really don't want to be in a dog eat dog scenario?

Humpty Dumpty

As more banks are failing, I'm becoming more and more disenchanted with the Republican stance on commercial or economic success, or better put how to go about it.

Free markets are a nice thing to have. And as general of a statement that was, it's subvertly saying 'When it works, it works wonderfully.'

Myth #1: Companies want to give you low prices because they want to obtain business.
Fact: Companies get large enough or create enough partners to become a oligopoly or cartel, they don't need to worry about your business because they'll get it one way or another.

See Wal-Mart, OPEC, Time-Warner/Comcast


Myth #2: Giving tax breaks to the wealthy helps the poor by the upper class creating more jobs for the proletariat.

Fact: People with tons of money will put it where they think they get the most reward vs. risk, whether that be business, commodity, housing, or even other financial institutions. Economic downturn is a correction on high prices of a given object, unless artificially inflated and sustained.


Myth #3: An elected President is the one who drives the economy one way or another through policy.

Fact: While having sway over the national party, the President doesn't make the financial calls, Congress does. You want more fiscally responsible government? Then worry about the chuckleheads in your local district on Capital Hill. The problem is they are too busy listening to lobbyists then to their own constiuency, but your email will get read on their Blackberry while they're waiting on their steak paid for by Pfizer, right? Wrong.


Call me a pessimist but there seems to be a lot more work to be done then just to say you're a maverick who votes with the party 90% of the time, or someone who has pretty Change! posters but not enough plan to enact on.

BTW Republicans: Not even your own pundits like Palin.

Can't Buy Good Help These Days

Another aide spoke out of turn again today. I guess its what happens when you have a slow news day, you find anything to talk about. But it's what the aide said and the NYT reaction to it.

If you didn't follow the link the synopsis is this: "Charlie Black, a senior adviser to Senator John McCain, was quoted in a magazine interview saying that another terrorist attack in the United States would "be a big advantage" for Mr. McCain in the upcoming election".

Now, of course McCain said 'NoWai' and the Obama side said 'LOL' but what's more important here is that NYT is dead wrong. Another terrorist attack would be the *worst* thing for Republicans now because it would prove that A.) No Administration would be able to prevent everything, and only highlight Bush's failures, and B.) What more can you do as a President to fight terrorism if you already nearly run as a police state and have your own personal gulag (we haven't forgotten about you Guantanimo).

To me it'd just prove that a little 'inexperience' may be a good thing right about now.

Teens for Obama Turning Parents

Seems that kids in my generation are not only bucking for Obama but turning their parents as well. I find it mildly interesting seeing as how I had the political talk with my own Dad and his two cents, learning that McCain was his choice.

What it came down for me was, who was the best for change. And considering the miserable failures this administration has suffered through, is experience really something we want? And of course having experience is the best thing, but there are different kinds. Not a single person who gets elected to office has experience as President (unless of course you were operating directly under the Big Cheese). Frankly I feel like being Secretary of State is the closest you're going to get to have true experience as a world leader. Does being a Senator really give you the tactical expertise needed to stem invasions or barter treaties?

In the end I feel like the best course of action is to put someone into office an accomplished renaissance person who not only is very intelligent but willing to learn.

Writing to My Congressperson

Nothing makes me more apathetic about politics then trying to "write to my congressperson". And nothing says "you're insignificant" more then the Congressman response form letter. Look, if I thought by calling or writing my representative would be a louder voice then some lobbyists lavish gifts and, well lets be honest, bribes, then I'd be more pro-active in the political process. But as it stands now, the only people with voice are people with money.

Take for example the linked reference article.

In it the RIAA/MPAA mafia added legistlation binding the schools to help give them evidence for students who distribute on p2p and bit torrent networks within the University. USF is no exception as it forces you to agree to a Terms of Use Agreement saying that you have to basically not participate in that kind of activity lest they give you up to be sued for a few thousand dollars.

This is domestic terrorism. If you think that what the RIAA/MPAA are doing is legal and just by going after individual citizens, then keep on purchasing and participating. Everyone else, boycott them. Bu music online direct from the artist. Rent movies from Apple store. Do whatever you can to give them less leverage to stop the lawsuits.

Link via Ars Technica

The Real News

In waiting for the Macworld 2008 keynote, I spent some time around the interwebs just seeing what was news, what wasn't and in general what was going on in the world.

While everyone was drooling over Steve Jobs' new bastard of technological bliss something interesting happened in the world.

President Bush got dissed by the Saudis.

Not only dissed, but politely laughed out of the Arabian Peninsula. Here is the reason why you should care. Paying nearly 30 dollars for my silly 10 gallon tank (i'm sure 60 dollars for some people) is serious business. And the Saudis don't care. In fact they're response to Bush's plea for increasing production was

"Saudi Arabia’s oil minister, Ali al-Naimi, appeared to rebuff the president’s appeal, though he did so gently. “We will raise production when the market justifies it,” he said at a press conference after Mr. Bush’s remarks."(source, NY Times)

Read in they're not raising prodction now because they are comfortable with 3 dollar a gallon gas.

From first hand knowledge I know that gas is 29 baht/litre which comes out to around $3.70 per gallon so we aren't even seeing the worst of it.

ESRB vs NIMF vs MILFs

Ok, that last part was made up. No one is against MILFs, at least not yet. Doesn't it seem weird though that everything has an orginization against it? Drunk driving has MADD, Google has privacy advocate groups, RIAA and MPAA have the entire world, ACLU has reason.... it never seems to end does it? Well lucky for us, for all you parents that don't have the common sense to figure out how the ESRB works, we have an advocacy group for you. Its called The National Institute on Media and the Family, and its sole purpose is to make sure you're kids aren't being marketed things like Halo or Grand Theft Auto for your little young ones so they don't trick you into buying said games without doing any research at all. Cause God forbid there is an easy-to-use system on all of the boxes that clearly tell you what age groups should be playing said games.

Alright, enough sarcasm. Do I care about Manhunt 2 getting pulled from distrobution or Rockstar getting this black eye? No. There is a line called taste, and Rockstar may have crossed it. But, because of the naysayers track records on past games like Bully, I actually gave Rockstar the benifit of a doubt. No, I've never played or seen footage of Manhunt 2. I agree that making an innocent civillian shooter is a terrible thing, including those created in completely bad taste, but is it protected under free speech? Personally I think ESRB did this soley because it wasn't a popular game to begin with, it was developed by Rockstar, and it was violent. Rockstar didn't lose terribly over missing the ship date of this game, and the ESRB can look good by showing NIMF that it can prevent violent games from entering the market, which I guess looks good to NIMF because it keeps the truth from their supporters that they don't have a constitutional leg to stand on.

Enough ranting and raving. I'm done. I got a different viewpoint from a mother and still feel like I made some good points on my own. We don't need a lettered orginization telling people what to buy. Take some responsibility for your own actions.

Do No Evil (Again)

It appears that Google is once again creating controversy over something seemingly benign. Many web sources are saying how Google's new Street View is really just another way for the conglomerate to invade our privacy. And more annoyingly, link it to their now infamous phrase "Don't Be Evil". I've already written about what I think of the flak they get but it seems now that operating in China and gathering cookie data about searches isn't bad enough, there is this new-fangled Street View to worry about!

Please. If you're doing something illegal, inappropriate, or something in completely bad taste in plain sight of the road then who are you to complain. Did you know that when TV crews are filming in public places, they could immortalize you picking your nose in the background of the 6 o'clock news?

A comment on a random blog (this link, comment by "Dr.Zoinkelstein")

"It isn't shocking, but I challenge you to find a better solution for taking live photos of cities that can balance interests of consideration against those of practicality. Tell a neighborhood you are showing up to immortalize it (for a few months) and the advertising, slander, inappropriate nudity, etc... comes out of the wood works. In truth, they probably should exhibit some better manners in notifying sensitive places (abortions centers) about such things, but no one said that digitizing images was going to be antiseptic.

In any case, at the end of the day, Google is still providing pioneering free and useful services and is in my opinion, the most outrageously ethical corporation that has ever been in the fortune 500. It isn't a perfect corporation, and I will be curious to see if it can maintain its culture and ethics as it expands past 15, 20 and 30 thousand employees, but it is a cultural experiment in corporate and profit structure that usually meets with more condemnation than it deserves."

Should you not go to an abortion clinic because they have protesters (most of them do by the way) or the porno theatre because your likeness might be captured by a passing Google Street View cam (once every three months estimated)? I don't know, but living life like there is no surveillance or nosy people is a happier life then constantly being worried.

And at least you can request to remove an unflattering picture right on the page. Giving you a way out, even through they have legal ground to keep it up without your permission? Sounds very not-evil to me.

The Church of Halo

America has been an interesting hotbed of convenience inventions including but not limited to all-you-can-eat pizza places, wireless internet, and the Roomba® have come up with another idea for worship. Converting a big box store into an 111,000 sq ft mega church won't be an easy task but the most interesting addition is the arcade for kids/teens which will have a Halo running Xbox. Halo, of course, is rated by the ESRB as M for Mature so it begs the question why in the world a church would sponsor the addition.

(from the Detroit News article )

"We want going to church to be an enjoyable and enriching experience for the whole family," said Senior Pastor Jerry Weinzierl, 50, of Warren. "Even if someone comes in for the wrong reason, I can maybe make an impact on them for that moment." "This will be a very peaceful place."

Using contemporary culture to be bait for fishers of men isn't necessarily a new concept. Crosswinds, a local university youth group, had every Wednesday a "Halo Night" that provided the space and projectors for 4 linked Xboxes to run Halo 2, and was by far the most popular event. I hope in this Wal-Mart style church these people won't have too many distractions.

Link via Detroit News

Army Blocks Youtube, Myspace, Fun Times

First thing is first. I don't know why this is so much a big deal. Yes, it sucks that our soldiers can't talk to people on Myspace (which in some circles is the only method of communication) but I don't think its censorship. Basically, not only is it a security risk but streaming Youtube is heavy on bandwidth uses. Is it fair? Not really. But my work doesn't even let me access my blog competely. Its not out of malice but basically they don't want our workers destroying the network with traffic thats not legit traffic but rather traffic that makes money. Same problem but on a worldwide, closed network.

I don't understand how this is censorship. Pretty much I just feel that its not out of reach of speculation that all of that traffic would cause congestion. People put so many pictures and movies that its even worse then Youtube on a good day.

In the end I guess it looks bad on the military again, and especially while they deserve it more often then not. I guess in my humble opinion, this time its unwarrented.

Link

Do No Evil

When Google was created (or popularized) they diverged from company mantra with a simple line in their creed: Do no evil. Now many of Google's critics point out certain instances where this has either been looked over or simply ignored, the biggest instance that sticks out in my mind is when Google negotiated with the Chinese Communist Government in helping censor the web from its Chinese citizens. While that in itself is terrible, what was the alternative? Pull out of a 6 billion person market to let Yahoo and MSN stay to take over Google's remaining market share to companies with even less scruples to an extent to let the Chinese government open email accounts of its patrons? (Hello Yahoo mail, feel guilty about helping China imprison a citizen yet?)

If you get angry about that, then here are some examples of companies who do evil and don't care:

RIAA/MPAA/Copyright Royalty Board

Normally putting this three-headed dragon's name in print causes me to go into convulsions, but soon something as simple as internet radio could go by the wayside and needs to be mentioned. Now I'm not going to go into the usual diatribe as to saying something as inflammatory as the RIAA, MPAA and the like were doing what they did to protect the artists they whore out represent, but now another business model they couldn't monetize to death could be legislated away. The Copyright Royalty Board, under pressure from the RIAA greatly increased the cost to play licensed music over the internet to an extent well beyond what could be feasible by internet radio stations, large and small alike, could sustain. (read more here) Surprisingly, a few contenders have come to fight the evil. Remember, these are the same people who tried to browbeat Steve Jobs into selling music for something more then $0.99 for more popular songs. (to which his reply was "LOL") So don't expect this to be the last media companies and the legislators they have in their pockets will continue to do YOU disservice.

Verizon

Apparently Verizon thought they were God's gift to teh interwebs because not only did they complain loudly enough to prevent Pennsylvania's free Wi-fi program to its knees (yeah I know Verizon, you couldn't stand a couple million poor people get free internet access but would rather them pay through the nose) but are now going after a company to protect its arcane technology. Now granted, if Vonage was a boxer, he would look bloodier then Rocky fighting Apollo but the premise is extremely interesting. Basically, using existing Internet technologies, bridges the gap between the Internet and the Telephone in a way that would make a tel-co sick to their stomach. Want an easy phone service where you have crystal-clear cheap phone calls and take your number wherever you go? Yeah, your phone line isn't doing that. What got me upset wasn't that Verizon is suing Vonage to protect their patent but that Verizon was suing Vonage to prevent that technology in the market and keeping their existing business model viable. Whether or not Verizon had the patent first is a moot point. The U.S. patent system is comparable to an injured bird that can't fly and flapping on the ground so any patent holding company could find patents they held and claim technology that was theirs just for the big payoff someday (Blackberry anyone?). If IF Verizon was to incorporate what Vonage has done completely into their broken land line and long distance model, then that's less evil enough for me to stomach. Maybe its a little too much to ask for companies to think how to make their products better for their consumers without thinking of ways to overcharge them in the process. GG Verizon, your inscrutable business practices might make you savvy in making money, but as a company, I'd rather spend my hard earn cash on someone who is a little less of a dick. Here's to one less customer.

Sony (and Sony BMI)

Anyone remember the spyware program known as Gator that infested your computer with adware and slowed it to a screeching halt, all the while calling it a "service"? In comes Sony Music. They hire a team of coders to do something similar to your computer so you can't do what the RIAA wishes could never be done: rip CDs. Long story short, removing the software did nothing short of damage your computer's CD drive and render it nonoperational.

Now I'm not saying avoid these companies or that my choices are any better. I'm sure Cingular/AT&T have done equally worse and that Verizon/Sony/RIAA are just rightfully protecting their interests, but that doesn't mean you have to actively participate with them. While none of us will ever have the money to be truly heard by any lawmaker, don't sit there like a stub and actively be unaware. Try within your power to do no evil. §

Politics, Elections, and Perception

Most of the time, we deal with media in a passive role. You don't know it yet, but you're being entertained by my words (albeit in a more informative role I'm sure). This shapes your beliefs in not so obvious ways, and more importantly, your perceptions. In reading the daily news something caught my eye, Presidential hopeful and political newbie Senator Barack Obama made front page news on CNN by just announcing a daring plan thats almost been a democratic standard. Universal Healthcare within six years. Something more interesting was said though not two paragraphs later: its being the 2008 Democratic Primary theme. What I mean is that every canidate believes and wants to implement this Universal Healthcare. Hilary has been a strong supporter and is also making it a central theme, and every single canidate suppports it while not making it front and center of their issues. But what gets me is that the only one with the picture on the website is Obama himself.

The entire article not only focuses on Obama and spends more print talking about his views, but speaks his plan like its something new. With good reason. while he stated its a Democratic main issue along with Universal Education and that Democrats "need to cling to the core values that make us Democrats, the belief in universal health care, the belief in universal education, and then we should be agnostic in terms of how to achieve those values."
By making it his central issue, other canidates have to follow suit and support it because they know what the media knows. And that is Obama is popular, and its growing quickly. Once Hilary's announcement loses its sensationalism, Obama will be continuing to get free publicity by just making these sort of little announcements, sort of how an incumbent President can get their name out weeks in and out before an election. The caption under this image says it all: "Sen. Barak Obama has staked a position in a field that has been dominated by a chief rival for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination -- health care."

No matter what happens, its a good cause to champion and more importantly even if Obama loses the primaries, those things will be implemented in office soley because its now become "an issue". While its not so interesting that the media is once again making sensational something unsensational, I'm interested in their choice and its impact on the other canidates. §