Topic Tuesday #104 2014/07/15 "Voyeurism: Why We Like To Watch"

Topic Tuesday #104 2014/07/15 "Voyeurism: Why We Like To Watch"

Human beings are natural pattern seeking animals. What does that have to do with the voyeurism? Simple; you have to observe to recognize a pattern. Given the shape and structure of our brains, it can be concluded that humans are very visual creatures. Our eyes being front facing and spaced to give a sense of depth, indicate we are keen on focusing our vision on points of interest. If we go down the "predatory", or conversely "prey", avenues, we can readily draw correlations to the benefits of an evolved observation of a target, to find patterns that are relevant to either attack or escape, or whatever your proclivity may be. 

We are all "wired" in similar ways, but we have a multitude of differences in what drives us. For some people, and I posit all people to a degree, like to watch other people. One of my hobbies is people watching. The best places to people watch are places with a lot of people and highly emotionally charged spaces. Take a theme park; thousands of people, all paying around $100 each to be there, to (in theory) have fun. Funny how people act when they are under pressure (financial, expectations, etc.) to enjoy themselves. The kids do, because it is what they do, until they burn out or are told "NO". Watching the parents is an exercise in human nature. I find it absolutely fascinating. This detached nature of observation, I have found, is shared by many people. In others, it goes beyond the detached. 

Voyeurism, as defined by Hirschfeld, M. (1938). Sexual anomalies and perversions: Physical and psychological development, diagnosis and treatment (new and revised edition), is the sexual interest in or practice of spying on people engaged in intimate behaviors, such as undressing, sexual activity, or other actions usually considered to be of a private nature.

This first part of the definition from 1938, puts a stigma on what may be a perfectly natural impulse. The last part, is more like the movie Rear Window or my people watching at theme parks. Let me be clear, the desire to watch other people, for whatever reason is not inherently bad or taboo, but if you make peep holes and plant cameras around the object of your desire, you have likely stepped over the line... unless you have a warrant for surveillance.

Today, we all revel in voyeurism. It's the most popular thing on television. Reality TV is nothing more than voyeurism. Shows like Survivor, The Real World, Survivor Man, and so on, though produced and often scripted, fill the need in our brains to analyze what pattern the participants will reveal. Did the one you thought demonstrated the best overall fitness gain immunity or get voted off the island? If you picked a side, you were participating in the spectacle, investing brain power to finding the winner.

Voyeurism is a primal and vital part of what we are. Some have it a little reversed and enjoy being watched, opposed to being the watcher. The exhibitionist is the natural subject to the voyeur. It's a fascinating relationship that we have with each other, and thankfully, as long as you do not break anyone's personal privacy rights, everyone can explore their proclivities with impunity. 

Small factoid for you to take away, "Scopophobia" is a fear of being stared at. Not very good if you have a career on stage or screen.


Topic Tuesday #103 2014/07/08 "Wearing Technology"

Topic Tuesday #103 2014/07/08 "Wearing Technology"

I have a confession to make. I *may* be addicted to technology. Hard to believe, I know. But the signs are clear. I have a technolust. Recently, one of my dream fictional technologies has been made a reality. Smart Watches. We are talking Dick Tracy and Batman technology here! Somehow these companies are using Timelord T.A.R.D.I.S. technology to make it all fit inside itty bitty little hunks of expensive glory. I swear this stuff is ridiculous, and we have become completely numb to how amazing it is. This is right in the wheelhouse of Arthur C. Clarke's statement that, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

The rundown of these new wearables start out with Google Glass. Google essentially managed a WiFi/bluetooth tethered android powered camera with a H.U.D. to display small blurbs of data in your peripheral vision. It has various sensors and a GPS radio as well for navigation functions. There are some natural problems with this technology. Primarily, the overt camera wherever you are looking is off-putting to those you encounter. Just seems people don't like cameras pointed at them. Users have garnered the less affectionate nickname: "Glass-holes". Sad really for the folks that forked over $1,500 to be in the Glass Explorer program. The technology, though not exactly revolutionary, was a breakthrough and a rich platform for iterative technology changes leading to the Android Wear codebase that is now integrated into Android Jelly Bean and older. 

Glass teardown.PNG
Samsung Galaxy Gear Live

Samsung Galaxy Gear Live

Unveiled at Google IO 2014 were three examples of the new Android Wear watches. The Samsung Gear Live, the LG G Watch, and the Moto 360. Samsung has been in this space for a while competing with the likes of Pebble and other upstart start-ups (which I am excluding from this rundown and just sticking to Android). Their first, the Galaxy Gear, has a camera which is pretty cool but the whole thing is tied heavily into their Galaxy ecosystem, making it a non-starter for many who do not own a Galaxy Note 3 or a Galaxy S5. The Galaxy Gear Live, compared to it's predecessors is more for mass market appeal, but does not have a camera, which is a little disappointing in the Dick Tracy gadget department. Since you can use it with any Android device, it is still a huge improvement.

LG G Watch

LG G Watch

Apple iPod Nano in Speck Watchband.

Apple iPod Nano in Speck Watchband.

LG went with a utilitarian design for the G Watch. Not very elegant. Very boxy. It looks a lot like an iPod nano turned into a watch, before Apple changed the design.  Sadly they didn't build a great deal of utility into it. Unlike the Samsung, it does not have a heart rate monitor. With these devices, fitness is the obvious choice. They have accelerometers, compass, and gyros as part of the system to turn on the face when the watch is raised to a viewing angle, and this naturally works as a pedometer. Additionally the specs seem to all have a microphone, but there does not appear to be any sign of a speaker. You will need your phone with you anyway, as this is a companion device without an internet connection of it's own, so it doesn't really have to have sound.

Then we come to the last of the three, the Motorola Moto 360. Well... It's round! It looks like a watch. A typical watch. The reviews so far have indicated it is quick and feels lighter than some of those really fancy all metal designer watches.  It does have a physical button, though that may just make it look even more like something that should classically be on a wrist, I'm sure they have a plan for it. Given they have not released it yet, the rumors are strong that it will charge without wires thanks to QI (pronounced 'chee') wireless charging that we have seen in the Nexus 4 and Nexus 5 smartphones. This could mean having to lug around the charging stand one trips away from home, which could be a bit of a bother. All of them seem to feature water resistance (no diving please) which will make for a carefree wearing experience through everyday life. 

Motorola's Moto 360 Smart Watch

Motorola's Moto 360 Smart Watch

These dandy pieces of wearable technology will cost between $199 and $250.  

By the way, my birthday is in November. wink wink nudge nudge.

They are't the VaultTec Pip-Boy 3000, but these will do quite nicely.

Topic Tuesday #102 2014/07/01 "Slippery Slope"

Topic Tuesday #102 2014/07/01 "Slippery Slope"

300px-Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.png

Like you, I am really tired of talking about this. But alas... I need to at least mention it here or I would be sorely remiss in my task of talking about topical things, for Topic Tuesday... Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled on the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Inc. case.  I touched on it in Topic Tuesday 94, should you want to revisit, prior art. As you likely know by now (as the ruling has become as virulent as wildfire in California) the ruling was 5 to 4 in favor of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Products. I'll sum up the case. These companies, being mandated to provide women birth control as part of the Affordable Health Care Act, decided to sue as the birth control was against the corporations religious freedom as stated in the Restoration of Religious Freedom Act of 1993. The jist of this, is best served by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She wrote a 35 page dissent (starts on page 60 of the verdict) of the verdict and was echoed by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and almost entirely by Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer.

  • "In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs."
  • "[T]he Court holds that Congress, in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993...  dictated the extraordinary religion-based exemptions today’’s decision endorses. In the Court’’s view, RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners’’ religious faith——in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga or dependents of persons those corporations employ. Persuaded that Congress enacted RFRA to serve a far less radical purpose, and mindful of the havoc the Court’’s judgment can introduce, I dissent."
  • "The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."
  • "Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
  • "The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage"
  • "Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."

...and to the detractors that say, "just pay for it yourself." 

  • "Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby's or Conestoga's plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman's autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults."
  • "It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage."

... And the logical conclusion that is likely to occur...

  • "Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."

I think she said everything that needs to be said, and is obviously more qualified than I to speak to the matter. I would like to stab at the heart of the entire thing, from my perspective. 

This is about 2 main points. 1. Money. The companies did not want to be forced to pay for ACA at all, and certainly not a good or service their founders saw as (and here is point 2) Abortion. I have written many time elsewhere on the matter of abortion. I will touch lightly on it here in the context of this example. The only reason they have an issue with it is because of their religion, which of course brings up the religious freedom issue. But... this tramples on the religious freedoms of their employees... the ones with actual human rights, opposed to some made up entity rights that corporations are issued to protect their shareholders from the acts of the company. This stinks. Everyone knows it stinks. Justices Samuel Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Anthony Kennedy are all Roman Catholics; an organization with a long history of opposing birth control. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, is also a Catholic, but also has the distinction of being a woman, which in this instance may have been a deciding factor in her decision. If you were curious, the rest of the Justices: Ginesburg, Breyer, and Kagan - are all Jewish, in addition to being more liberally minded and progressive. I'm not saying that this background is the reason for the rulings, but it is foolish to think it does not inform their opinions on such matters. Scalia is rather infamous for his belief in literal demons and all that entails, as referenced by his statement, "Hey, c’mon, that’s standard Catholic doctrine! Every Catholic believes that." . Here; I'll share it with you.

Jennifer Senior -You believe in heaven and hell?
Antonin Scalia - Oh, of course I do. Don’t you believe in heaven and hell?

Jennifer Senior - No. 

Antonin Scalia - Oh, my.

Jennifer Senior - Does that mean I’m not going?
Antonin Scalia - [Laughing.] Unfortunately not!

Jennifer Senior - Wait, to heaven or hell? 
Antonin Scalia - It doesn't mean you’re not going to hell, just because you don’t believe in it. That’s Catholic doctrine! Everyone is going one place or the other.

Jennifer Senior - But you don’t have to be a Catholic to get into heaven? Or believe in it? 
Antonin Scalia - Of course not!

Jennifer Senior - Oh. So you don’t know where I’m going. Thank God.
Antonin Scalia - I don’t know where you’re going. I don’t even know whether Judas Iscariot is in hell. I mean, that’s what the pope meant when he said, “Who am I to judge?” He may have recanted and had severe penance just before he died. Who knows?

Jennifer Senior - Can we talk about your drafting process—
Antonin Scalia - [Leans in, stage-whispers.] I even believe in the Devil.

Jennifer Senior - You do?
Antonin Scalia - Of course! Yeah, he’s a real person. Hey, c’mon, that’s standard Catholic doctrine! Every Catholic believes that.

Jennifer Senior - Every Catholic believes this? There’s a wide variety of Catholics out there …
Antonin Scalia - If you are faithful to Catholic dogma, that is certainly a large part of it.

Jennifer Senior - Have you seen evidence of the Devil lately?
Antonin Scalia - You know, it is curious. In the Gospels, the Devil is doing all sorts of things. He’s making pigs run off cliffs, he’s possessing people and whatnot. And that doesn't happen very much anymore.

Jennifer Senior - No.
Antonin Scalia - It’s because he’s smart.

Jennifer Senior - So what’s he doing now?
Antonin Scalia - What he’s doing now is getting people not to believe in him or in God. He’s much more successful that way.

Jennifer Senior - That has really painful implications for atheists. Are you sure that’s the ­Devil’s work?
Antonin Scalia - I didn't say atheists are the Devil’s work.

Jennifer Senior - Well, you’re saying the Devil is ­persuading people to not believe in God. Couldn’t there be other reasons to not believe?
Antonin Scalia - Well, there certainly can be other reasons. But it certainly favors the Devil’s desires. I mean, c’mon, that’s the explanation for why there’s not demonic possession all over the place. That always puzzled me. What happened to the Devil, you know? He used to be all over the place. He used to be all over the New Testament.

Jennifer Senior - Right.
Antonin Scalia - What happened to him?

Jennifer Senior - He just got wilier.
Antonin Scalia - He got wilier.

Jennifer Senior - Isn't it terribly frightening to believe in the Devil?
Antonin Scalia - You’re looking at me as though I’m weird. My God! Are you so out of touch with most of America, most of which believes in the Devil? I mean, Jesus Christ believed in the Devil! It’s in the Gospels! You travel in circles that are so, so removed from mainstream America that you are appalled that anybody would believe in the Devil! Most of mankind has believed in the Devil, for all of history. Many more intelligent people than you or me have believed in the Devil.

Jennifer Senior - I hope you weren't sensing contempt from me. It wasn't your belief that surprised me so much as how boldly you expressed it.
Antonin Scalia - I was offended by that. I really was.

Now... I don't want to bore you with legalese, but there is something noteworthy that should be brought to light in this case. In the Affordable Care Act, it indicated a very specific type of medical service, especially ““with respect to infants, children, and adolescents." It's "evidence-based". "Evidence-informed." Here, read the section for yourself.

U. S. C. §300gg––13(a)(1)––(3) (group health plans must provide coverage, without cost sharing, for (1) certain ““evidence-based items or services”” recommended by the U. S. Preventive Services Task Force; (2) immunizations recommended by an advisory committee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and (3) ““with respect to infants, children, and adolescents, evidence-informed preventive care and screenings provided for in the comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration””).

I wish everything in this case could be evidence-informed. We haven't heard the last of this one. See you in the funny papers.

Topic Tuesday #101 2014/06/24 "Silence"

Topic Tuesday #101 2014/06/24 "Silence"

Turn it off.

Turn it all off. Every gadget, every fan, every air conditioner, every engine, and listen. Be still.

Depending on where you are, you will still hear something. You may hear your breathing if you focus on it, but we usually tune it out, just like how the tip of our nose is always visible to our front facing eyes, but we ignore it.

You may hear someone talking seemingly far away.

You may hear a cicada or a cricket thrumming away. Perhaps a knot of toads or an army of frogs calling to one another. You may hear bird song, owl hoots, the knocking of woodpeckers, or even the humm of other flying things.

You may hear your own hearing damage. The slight and persistent ringing of tinnitus in the ears, a noise that never goes away and can be maddening.

The important thing in all this is to be aware there is more than the TV or the typing of a keyboard. There is a world around you that you may be taking for granted. Perhaps it has just been masked by all the trappings of what we think is a perfectly natural existence.

Turn it all off. Look around. Listen.

Get away from all the lights and look up. Hear the Earth sing its songs to you with swaying branches and whispered winds. Babbling brooks, raging rapids, roaring surf, all feel familiar in that primal heritage way, if you take a few minutes to notice them. Water makes so much noise. Rain falling through leaves to pepper the ground below with big thudding drops. The smell of a sea breeze or of a forest can energize and revitalize like nothing I have experienced in the world, but you do have to let your guard down to let it affect you.

You have all your senses to explore the world with. Appreciating all that the world has to offer is often a hard thing to do, when you are lead to believe it all has to have shine and LEDs to hold meaning. Remember that you are of this world. Getting to know it would do you some good. Not to sound too hippy dippy, but recent history has showed us that if you do not take care of the Earth, it will not take care of you either. Shutdown and reboot yourself now and then. Let yourself get back to basics. You can look down at your phone later.

Topic Tuesday #100 2014/06/17 "Inner Monologue"

Topic Tuesday #100 2014/06/17 "Inner Monologue"

Well holy crap, I have done 100 of these! I hope they are worthwhile in expanding conversation and highlighting those items you may have never considered or perhaps just never given time to. I have no intention of stopping. My thoughts on this fall to my children, since we just passed the equitable Hallmark holiday of Father's Day. One day, many years from now these musings and explorations will be read by my offspring, and at least then they will either learn something about the world or about their dear old dad.  Hi girls! I hope you are well in the future and make sure to buckle your seat-belts and fly your cars at the speed and height limit. Love you always.

Today is not about a time capsule but about our inner voice, our internal monologue. This is the "voice" in your head when you actively think about things, or perhaps you have in different voices when you are reading or remembering something someone said. We usually have this voice in our heads at a conscious level. This is how we can argue with ourselves. It gets complicated from here. 

Which one is going to do that "Over the Top" thing?

Which one is going to do that "Over the Top" thing?

In cultures where the Abrahamic traditions predominate, we have a cultural perspective on the inner voice. It may be construed as your "conscience" or as "the holy spirit". If the thoughts are classified as being...detrimental, then perhaps that inner voice is not your own but of a possession by a malevolent power or of Beelzebub himself. This is societally prevalent but also based on pure conjecture.

Buddhists, whom have a spent a great deal of time, in meta-cognitive states, thinking about thinking,  see the inner voice as a path to new concepts or to the next idea. "Thought following thought." This does not exactly directly address the inner voice but it does bring us to a place where we can make our inner voice question itself. Once we hit that point, then our minds tend to provide some ambiguity to the source of the concepts we think about or debate with our inner voice. This can be a maddening line of thought all on its own, so... think about it, before you think about it.

Attribution of the inner voice can easily slip into schizophrenia and hallucinations, or more commonly, hearing voices that have an unidentifiable source to the mind. This is also the realm of the supposed demonic possessions, and often is the scapegoat of a tired mind reaching the end of it's cognitive ability, where a little voice tells you to give up. 

We higher apes, with our expanded cognitive abilities, have what we assume to be a unique ability for self reflection and philosophy. We have the awareness of our own voices and even our own thinking. This "higher self" that we have spent extraordinarily large amounts of time and energy exploring is also the reason we "think" and think that the thinking portion of our selves is somehow separate and above the brain that it emerges from. This gives rise to a soul. Our innate fear of the unknown gives rise to the immortal soul. We have clear examples of brain injuries that have changed the way a person behalves and the way they think, so we are close to certain scientifically that thought and consciousness is an emerging aspect of our brain. 

image_thought_life.jpg

If you are keeping track, I just talked you through why I do not believe in a soul and the reason I don't believe there is life after death.  We are our brains, and our brains are us. We have the ability to talk to ourselves, and answer. Some of us like the answers we receive and others may have cause to think otherwise.  What is a person to do?

To give you an example of how your thoughts may not be your own, have you ever had someone say, without the melody, a lyric to a song and been instantly transmuted into a jukebox where the song plays in your head and your inner voice breaks out into song? The same works for less "tangible" thoughts, like the smell of food taking you to your grandparents kitchen. The brain has some things on instant recall, and not always things we enjoy. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is a nearly Pavlovian response to mental or physical stimulus. Hear a car backfire, and suddenly your brain transplants you to a personal hell-scape where you were being shot at. Or someone touches you a certain way and you remember being violated decades ago.  Or even worse... makes you think of that Sarah McLaughlin ASPCA commercial...

Thinking about thinking can be rewarding. Thinking about 'what' you are thinking can be hazardous, but also rewarding. Our brains are fascinating constructs that can turn dreams into reality and reality into dreams. Or... at least that is what my inner monologue told me to write... 

Topic Tuesday #99 2014/06/10 "Optimism"

Topic Tuesday #99 2014/06/10 "Optimism"

Optimism.
op·ti·mism ˈäptəˌmizəm/ noun
1: Hopefulness and confidence about the future or the successful outcome of something.

I am, generally, a rather optimistic person. Take my recent trip that I am currently in the midst of as an example. I did not book accommodations ahead my trip, hoping that I could get things done quickly and turn and burn back home. When that didn't happen, I checked in for only one night. I am hopeful again that I can get things done in enough time to make the eight hour drive in the same day. 
I did plan ahead though... I brought enough clothes for a prolonged trip. The moral of the story is no matter how optimistic you are, it can't override the Murphy's Law of reality. Things go wrong, ALL THE TIME; best to plan ahead. 
So, though I proclaim to be an optimist, perhaps that is just being optimistic of my own pragmatic approach to reality. Plan for the worst, hope for the best. 

Have a great week. And may luck always favor the bold and prepared.

 

Update: I'm looking for another hotel room, preferably with double beds so Murphy, and his law, can sleep in another bed.

Topic Tuesday #98 2014/06/03 "Guns. Lots of Guns."

Topic Tuesday #98 2014/06/03 "Guns. Lots of Guns."

How do we speak rationally to all parties about the topic of guns? This is a tough one, as no matter what side of the argument you talk about, you are going to deeply offend someone. Let me start by saying that is far from my intention, so please let's let feelings, no matter how strong fall away for a few minutes and let's calmly look at the situation we have in the United States.

Gun violence is an issue.

Gun control is an issue.

Would you agree to that? That we have issues about guns and how they are being used? I think everyone can at least swallow that.

First off, let me state that I personally think guns are fun. I enjoy going shooting, not hunting mind you. I was a weapons master in college and taught gun safety to those that had never held a firearm before. These were props, and had to be handled with the utmost care. If you will recall, Brandon Lee was killed when a firearm was mishandled on the movie set for "The Crow". Accidents happen, even to those that are highly trained. That said, there are many that are not highly trained that are handling their own weapons incorrectly. You cannot peruse the news without coming to at least one story involving a firearm discharge or the threat of its use interwoven with the story. Remember, a threat constitutes "Assault" while the physical violence represents "Battery" in an Assualt and Battery charge.

We have a certain expectation as a "polite" society that we can walk about and not be threatened or physically harmed. Unless you are particularly paranoid and believe the world is out to get you, you should see this pretty clearly. We also have certain expectations as legally set in our beloved Constitution. For clarity I will append the Second Amendment (as ratified and on display at the National Archives) here.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I am, at best, a hobbyist when it comes to history and the law. This topic has been droned on about ad nauseam  and though I am touching on it, I refuse to reinterpret it beyond plain english.

First, this section states a well regulated Militia. I am not part of a Militia, well regulated or otherwise. I certainly believe that the security of a free state does mean that the state has the ability to defend itself from threats, foreign and domestic, which is implied. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." By itself, which is how we most often hear this phrase, it is plain that this can be taken to mean that it is the right of every citizen to have a weapon and defend themselves if needed. It does not indicate that it is any particular armament, though it is always assumed to be guns. It could be knives, swords, cannons, bola, crossbow, etc... The number and types of weapons that we could list is staggering, but we always default to guns. I am not sure why, but I suspect it is a vocal minority with an agenda that has passed that idiom our way over many years. Now, the part about not being infringed.... That is a sticky point, so we won't go into how it makes sense that bazookas and heavy weapons should not be personal protective devices... Because... if we go past that line, we are taking things to their extreme positions and this is not the time for that.  Instead, let's just allow that you can own whatever weapon you like. Now... Let's talk about regulation. To draw a comparison to something else that can be used for harming others, let's look at automobiles. By law, we are required to have a class, pass a test, be licensed, keep a vehicle in proper working order to the point of passing annual checkups in some states, and we are required to keep insurance. We have accepted this across the board. You do not have to own a car, but to do so, you need to follow the rules that are put in place. This makes sense, as these rules are in place to protect everyone on or near the road, including others that do not have a car. 

So, why is there opposition to gun safety? Mandating locks, has been opposed. In fact mandating any ordinance involving firearms has met with stiff opposition. I recall when even a waiting period to buy a handgun was opposed. I do not understand why there is such opposition to things that could make the world safer, without taking away your gun, or the right to own one. Recently there was a firearm manufacturer that built a smart gun. one that would prevent the trigger from being pulled if it was too far away from a transponder the owner would wear. There are problems with the implementation, but it is sound in principle. The NRA and several other groups put extreme pressure on vendors to not sell the gun. Why?

There have been many tries to implement a mandatory national firearm registration. Where the Federal law stands today is with four key laws.

National Firearms Act of 1934 (written with the help of the NRA I might add)
This law regulates the transfer of a particular class of weapons known as Title II weapons. Title II weapons include machine guns, certain parts of machine guns, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, silencers, and destructive devices such as grenades or mortars. Title II weapons also include a category called, "Any Other Weapon." This is a generic term used to describe a concealable weapon that can shoot, but doesn't quite fit into any other category. An example of an "any other weapon" would be a cane gun or pen gun. The fee is $200.

Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) 
The Gun Control Act has the broadest reach of any federal gun control law as it pertains to the sale or transfer of any firearm and ammunition. This act established the Federal Firearms License (FFL) system which requires gun dealers to be licensed and prohibits interstate gun sales by anyone other than a licensed dealer. The GCA also made it unlawful for certain people to purchase firearms. These "prohibited persons" include:

  • Anyone currently under indictment for a crime punishable by more than a year in prison
  • Anyone who has been previously convicted of such a crime
  • Fugitives
  • Users of any controlled substance
  • Anyone who has been committed to a mental institution or deemed mentally defective
  • Illegal aliens
  • Anyone who has been dishonorably discharged from the military
  • Anyone who has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship
  • Anyone who currently has a restraining order against him or her from an intimate partner or child of said partner
  • Anyone who has been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor

Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) 
The Firearm Owners Protection Act was enacted to make changes to the Gun Control Act of 1968. One of the most notable changes banned civilian ownership of machine guns that were manufactured and registered after May 19, 1986. The act also introduced the “Safe Passage” provision. This provision protects gun owners who are traveling through a state from being prosecuted for breaking that state’s gun laws—under certain conditions. The gun owner must not spend any extended time in the state and must have his or her firearms unloaded and stored in a separate compartment such as a trunk or a lockbox.
Before this change to GCA, a dealer was defined as someone “engaged in the business” of selling firearms. Under FOPA, the definition was modified to specify that a dealer must be selling firearms for profit or livelihood. This allows unlicensed individuals to sell firearms from their private collection without performing a background check on the buyer. This change created what has become known as the “Gun Show Loophole.” The GCA still requires that guns not be sold to a “prohibited person” but without a background check, it may be impossible to determine if a buyer is prohibited.

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1994)
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act requires that Federally Licensed Dealers conduct background checks on any individual who purchases a weapon from them. The background check is to determine if the individual is a “prohibited person” as stated in the GCA. The act does not circumvent the Gun Show Loophole, provided the seller is not in the business of selling guns. In addition, federally licensed collectors of Curio and Relic (C&R) firearms do not have to undergo a background check when purchasing a C&R gun.

This is all we have right now. Some states hae their own laws but nationally I can buy a gun and it is not readily traced back to me, especially if it was sold at a gun show 3 or 4 times. No one would know I had a gun. No one is making sure I know how to use it, take care of it, and what safety measures should be taken.  Why not? 

It is my personal opinion that we should be required to register our guns. Keep in mind that every (modern) gun has a serial number and a unique "blast" pattern and grove combination. Every gun sold (to my knowledge) is test fired for before sale. There should be a record of this information. Something to hold the owner accountable for every discharge of their weapon. Also... just like with a car, you should have to have training and liability insurance to own one. Background checks should also be compulsory, even at gun shows and personal sales would require the registration to change hands, just like a car. Of course, I understand that any additional steps and paperwork would raise the cost of a gun. But I can't look at a headline and think that those extra dollars that could have prevented a tragedy or made bringing the perpetrator to justice faster... is not worth it. I would rather people go to jail for having an unregistered firearm than for drug possession. Is that unreasonable? 

Topic Tuesday #97 2014/05/27 "Solar Roads?"

Topic Tuesday #97 2014/05/27 "Solar Roads?"

It sounds like something from a sci-fi. "Solar Roads" where you ride the light or something fantastic. The reality is more down to earth, and more nuanced than the headlines hyperbole suggests. 

It comes as no surprise with all that asphalt out there, baking in the sun and hazing the air, that someone would think that if they could harness that energy in a meaningful way that they could really make a difference. It is a lot of surface area, and would have a lot of issues making a change. Let's get real for a second, it's unlikely, even in the best case scenario, that a solar panel roadway is going to be around any time soon. As a friend of mine put it, "pie in the sky"...

I suggested that if it was only a solar panel you could drive on, it would not be as compelling as the actual proposition. It would end up as only a headline garnering bullet point. Like this:

  • Solar energy collection
  • LED lighting for lines and text for driver information. Imagine a road that can alert you of issues up ahead or route you on a different course, or tell your car it is out of its lane.
  • Active feedback to authorities of traffic speed and road conditions.
  • Segmented structure will allow easy "patching" by replacing the damaged sections.
  • Heating elements to melt snow and ice buildup.
  • Communications cables like phone, TV, and internet. 
  • Municipal potable water.
  • Natural Gas.
  • Sanitary sewers.
  • Stormwater runoff.
  • And future technology, that will all be easily deployed under our roadways, sidewalks, and parking lots.

In closing, yes... It's expensive, but as with many things, it would be a long term investment that has the potential to save time and resources far into the future. It would be best to use this in highly planned developments first, to thoroughly prove its usefulness while understanding that as demand increases, so will availability as cost decreases. This will not solve the energy issues until it is widely adopted and retrofit into communities and freeways, so more conventional approaches are more possible at this time. Especially if you just want the promise of limitless energy from the solar roads of tomorrow land.                       

Topic Tuesday #96 2014/05/20 "Rehashing Equality, & Everything Else..."

Topic Tuesday #96 2014/05/20 "Rehashing Equality, & Everything Else..."

Topic Tuesday is my weekly essay on something. Somedays, I don’t know what to write, while other times, I could write about nothing else than what is on my mind. As you may or may not know, I started podcasting 6 weeks ago at www.orlyradio.com. This has taken some of the wind out of my sails as I try to not have too much overlap, and certainly try to keep it fresh week to week. My attention span has been divided and amplified into an odd news cycle that, is sometimes simply untenable. When the only newsworthy stories are rehashed over and over ad nauseam, I hesitate to do the same. At the same time, I realize that while the attention span of the average human has diminished terribly, mine has not. If I am interested in something, I feel the need to continue with it until I reach a saturation point or am driven to distraction by something else.

So here we are, about to have many of the same topics, rehashed and revisited, as needed.

Yesterday, Oregon’s ban on same-sex marriage fell. Today, Pennsylvania also fell.

I will list the opinions of the judges in their judgements, as they are awesome.

Oregon - Geiger v. Kitzhaber & Rummell v. Kitzhaber:

Expanding the embrace of civil marriage to gay and lesbian couples will not burden any legitimate state interest… The state's marriage laws unjustifiably treat same-gender couples differently than opposite-gender couples. The laws assess a couple's fitness for civil marriage based on their sexual orientation: opposite-gender couples pass; same-gender couples do not. No legitimate state purpose justifies the preclusion of gay and lesbian couples from civil marriage.
“At the core of the Equal Protection Clause, however, there exists a foundational belief that certain rights should be shielded from the barking crowds; that certain rights are subject to ownership by all and not the stake hold of popular trend or shifting majorities...”

“My decision will not be the final word on this subject, but on this issue of marriage I am struck more by our similarities than our differences. I believe that if we can look for a moment past gender and sexuality, we can see in these plaintiffs nothing more or less than our own families. Families who we would expect our Constitution to protect, if not exalt, in equal measure. With discernment we see not shadows lurking in closets or the stereotypes of what was once believed; rather, we see families committed to the common purpose of love, devotion, and service to the greater community.

"Where will this all lead? I know that many suggest we are going down a slippery slope that will have no moral boundaries. To those who truly harbor such fears, I can only say this: Let us look less to the sky to see what might fall; rather, let us look to each other ... and rise.” - U.S. District Judge Michael McShane

 

Pennsylvania - Whitewood v. Wolf:

“We are a better people than what these laws represent, and it is time to discard them into the ash heap of history.- U.S. District Judge John E. Jones, III

 

 

For more on the state of the states with marriage issues: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/gay-marriage-states-legal-map

I’ll be back next week, and you can catch me live Friday’s at orlyradio.com around 9pm eastern.

 

Topic Tuesday #95 2014/05/13 "Tell Me A Story"

Topic Tuesday #95 2014/05/13 "Tell Me A Story"

Once upon a time...
In a galaxy far, far away...
It was a dark and stormy night...
And it came to pass...
So we were at this bar...
There was this girl/boy/woman/man/dog/cat/horse/pig/etc...

How does the story begin? How does the story end? And what the heck is in the middle to get from here to there?

It's a struggle that every writer has to contend with. No matter what topic, you have to begin, present, and end. Which is the hardest? That depends on the writer and subject. 
If you are the kind of person that finds it hard to walk away or say good bye, you may have dozens of stories that are only half told with no exit strategy.  
You may know the perfect ending and have a beginning, but choke when figuring out all the connective tissue between the two.

You might have great story ideas but no entry and no exit in sight and that wall prevents you from writing a damn thing. 
Frustration is the annoying officemate that accompanies the writer to the break room talking about the same inane drivel they always do. 
I have mentioned it before but it bears noting again; outlines are your friend.

Take Hollywood as an example. Why are those terrible stories made? Well... Formula scripts work. They are easily understood. They fit into production schedules. Editors have an easier job. 

I am not telling you to write a formula Hollywood docudrama. Please... Think of the children...
But we can take an example from the sweatshop script factories. They have the ability to both start and finish, while connecting the two in a somewhat intelligible way. (Some series ends excluded of course.)

As we know, most of the time they do not care about the story. They make it fit a rigid structure. That structure is valuable. Check out some script analysis diagrams. (I say scripts simply because it is often easier than working through the structure of a literary work, but can be translated to it.) You start with the "exposition", then you transition to the "rising action", then to the "climax", " falling action", and the "resolution", or cliffhanger if you are in the sitcom biz, or George R. R. Martin...

In longer stories each chapter, or even every paragraph, may follow the same basic flow.  It's hard and sometimes constrictive, but that can be magical. For example, I recently did a little game on my Facebook wall. Short stories, of only six words. This was remarkable for bringing out rampant creativity. Hemingway* did, perhaps the best of these. 

"For sale, baby shoes. Never worn." (* - Heminway may not have been the originator but is credited with it.) 
Sometimes all you need is a little restriction to actually soar to new heights. I'll get into the psychology of choice another day. 

Go write something!

Topic Tuesday #94 2014/05/06 "Equality?"

Topic Tuesday #94 2014/05/06 "Equality?"

As I pay attention more and more to the news now that I have a show that talks about it every week, I find some disturbing recurring themes. There is always violence, that has been pretty steady, with the whole, "If it bleeds it leads" mantra of news agencies around the United States. Today in the US, faith based matters dominate. Don't think so? I can see why you may think otherwise, as on the surface they seem to be other issues. Dig a little deeper, and you get to why it is an issue in the first place.

Take marriage equality, or "gay marriage" as an example. Is this a civil rights issue? Most likely. Why in the 21st century would such civil or even human rights be impinged upon? Religion. It's plain and simple. Countless articles and news stories, and the only ones causing a fuss about letting two humans marry each other, are those with a religious stake in the game. They are losing by the way, and I think that's a good thing for humanity. Eventually those that oppose gay marriage and homosexuality will fall to the side, like their predecessors did for slavery and the rights of minorities and supporters of women's suffrage (though equal pay has a ways to go...).

Take abortion, or right to life, or choose life, or any other number of phrases used to get legislation passed... If one looks at the issue from the position of medical science, there is no real question on the issue. It should remain in the hands of those trained to deal with these matters safely... Rather than those that look at it from the position of life beginning at conception or EVEN BEFORE conception in some cases... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/10/az-abortion-bills-arizona-gestational-age_n_1415715.html Now we can get into how cells divide and what constitues a person, and when the rights of the mother are somehow less than the child she bears... But we don't need to. Really we don't. You can comment if you like and I encourage you to do so, but be very honest with your arguments.

While on abortion, we also have Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, sueing to avoid having to pay for the contraceptive mandates within the Affordable Health Care Act. They are claiming that their publicly traded companies have a religious preference... When the entire reason to incorporate it to remove liability from an individual and make the company it's own legal entity. Now this legal entity has a religious preference. Funny how we can't imprison a company, or execute it for a crime, or even talk directly to it... Yet it holds, funny enough, the same religious views as its board of directors... So it can claim that based on its religious objection, it can withhold government mandated care from it's employees, effectively pushing their views upon others. 

If they open that door wide enough... There are monsters that lurk there. The monsters of other peoples faiths and preferences and then... laws.

Here is the problem... The separation of church and state as inferred by the 1st amendment's establishment clause,  no matter how you look at it, is there to prevent religions from hurting the rights of others by playing favorites. It's simple. Person 1 believes X. Person 2 believes Y. If you make a law that is based solely off of belief X you can infringe upon the beliefs of Person 2, because they believe Y, not X. The only way for both X and Y to co-exist peacefully is for there not to be any laws based on beliefs... A separation of law and faith; between church and state. It keep is fair. 

Now we had a recent result from the US Supreme court that narrowly sided (5 to 4) that it was permissible to have prayer before civic/government functions. All I can hope, is that the invocations/prayers come in from all faiths, equally. History tells us this won't happen and that such displays drive wedges in communities because of differing faiths. Bigotry... Faith Based Bigotry is still alive and well. And it needs to stop... 

Topic Tuesday #93 2014/04/29 "Gun Safety - Hell No!?"

Topic Tuesday #93 2014/04/29 "Gun Safety - Hell No!?"


The iP1 the first "smart gun" for sale in the United States.CreditMonica Almeida/The New York Times

The iP1 the first "smart gun" for sale in the United States.CreditMonica Almeida/The New York Times

Last night a story came across my news feed that made me sit up and take notice. It was a beautiful fire arm that I swore was a movie prop. (See Picture) http://nyti.ms/1fHGKgi

The iP1 is quite a stunning looking pistol. It's a .22 caliber and will only fire when a 5 digit pin is input into the watch and is within 10 inches of it. As a technologist, I personally foresee the technology could be embedded in any personal item, as the watch is not as attractive as the gun, that could be a good thing for the $1,800 firearm... That is if the gun, and its technology, are ever able to make it to market. Second Amendment activists flooded social media site like Calguns.net, and called for vigilante-style investigations of Ms. Padilla and Armatix.  One user commented that he had no issues with "...the idea of personally and professionally leveling the life of someone who has attempted to profit from disarming me and my fellow Americans."

The gun lobby in the U.S. is far less concerned (and I'm not being hyperbolic) with the safety of the public than they are with the ability to manufacture and sell guns without any additional safety mechanisms, or smart technology. The company, Armatix, and its chief representative here in the states, Belinda Padila have been ostracized and harassed as part of a campaign to shut down the sale of the iP1 smart gun. They are not alone either, as just last year a study found that 3 other companies came out with a smart safety system for firearms. We haven't heard much about them either...

From the times article:

"Second Amendment defenders argue that once guns with high-tech safety features go on sale, government mandates will follow. They cite a decade-old New Jersey law requiring that within three years of the recognition technology’s becoming available in the United States, all guns sold in the state would have to be “smart.”

“Are we concerned?” asked Lawrence G. Keane, general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for gun manufacturers. “Yes.”

The National Rifle Association, in an article published on the blog of its political arm, wrote that “smart guns,” a term it mocks as a misnomer, have the potential “to mesh with the anti-gunner’s agenda, opening the door to a ban on all guns that do not possess the government-required technology.”

Padila and Armatrix continue to look for retailers. Personally, If I was to have a gun in my house, you better believe it would be an owner recognition system. 

A friend pointed out that there may be a better marketing strategy that they missed out on. That if the caliber was the same as is used in the military and law enforcement side arms that they would have a larger target market and potential for more lateral support.  I hope Armatix is listening and coming out with a Desert Eagle equivalent. And if it looks as slick as this model, you might even see it in your next buddy cop film, unless the gun nuts get their way. Eventually, common sense should win out. There have been too many casualties and this allows people to retain their rights to bare arms and adds a layer of protection. Imagine no more accidental deaths from children shooting their siblings in the face. I would like to never see another story like that again.

Topic Tuesday #92 2014/04/22 "Why Am I Here Again?"

Topic Tuesday #92 2014/04/22 "Why Am I Here Again?"

It has happened to all of us (there is a reason I can say that truthfully). We pickup something to take care of in another room and walk there and once we arrive, the purpose of our journey has eluded us. In our confusion we may just wander back to our point of origin only to realize why we set off in the first place. we beat ourselves up over being too tired or any other plausible excuse for our forgetfulness. 

Here is the result of a recent study, doorways trigger our short term memory to "clear". They are calling it the "doorway effect".

I didn't know I was hungry...

I didn't know I was hungry...

"...some forms of memory seem to be optimized to keep information ready-to-hand until its shelf life expires, and then purge that information in favor of new stuff.  Radvansky and colleagues call this sort of memory representation an “event model,” and propose that walking through a doorway is a good time to purge your event models because whatever happened in the old room is likely to become less relevant now that you have changed venues."

Many things can trigger this same clearing of short term memory. Such as a phone call or a door bell, maybe a child needing attention. All things that can distract for a moment and take you out of your concentration could derail your train of thought. It also is something that be have very little control over. Some things the brain is just predisposed to do, such as the phenomenon of pareidolia, which represents our predilection for seeing faces and hearing voices when the genuine article is just some wind or clever trick of light and shadow. 

It's hard to understand, but sometimes, you just can't trust your own brain. But knowing is.... wait... what was I doing? Oh year, getting a snack from the fridge. Why did I open the refrigerator? Huh....  Right... Sometimes you should just make some external reminders and don't trust that you will remember things. You may laugh at the person with sticky notes on their bathroom mirror, but they may know... or remember something that you forgot just walking through the door.

Topic Tuesday #91 2014/04/15 "Bloodmoon"

Topic Tuesday #91 2014/04/15 "Bloodmoon"

In the wee hours of the morning, with the kids snuggled in bed and me done with whatever I was going to accomplish for the evening, I stepped out my front door and grabbed a chair. Looking up I saw a gorgeous full moon on a clear night. It was like walking into a twilight. I watched as the cool spring breeze kept all the mosquitos away. My faithful outdoor cat hopped into my lap to share the time with me. It was a very relaxing time. I felt marvelously small. Like all the world was just as small as I was and the concerns we have, smaller still. To marvel at the tricks of light that make this moment something special. How the diffraction of the Sun's rays through the atmosphere (the penumbra), the same that give us beautiful red sunsets, color the shadow of the Earth (the umbra) falling on the moon to a lovely rose or "blood" for the more dramatic. It was a great feeling to look on our nearest celestial neighbor (with Mars close by) enjoy the moment. 

Today I learn that there are some wackadoos out there that are claiming it signals the end of the world. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/14/pastor-john-hagee-tuesdays-blood-moon-eclipse-signals-the-end-of-the-world/?onswipe_redirect=no

Really? Really? In typical fashion for the would be prophets and doomsayers, using a bit of science that they just fail to have any understanding of, to signal the apocalypse they crave so much. This may sound familiar... "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." That was, of course, Jesus foretelling the end of days. But... we are all still here and I would put every dollar I have ever earned that this series of lunar eclipses is not the harbinger of doom. 

We are all going to be fine, and even better if we slow down and look up at the wonder of the universe we live in. Stop wishing for this short ride to be over... just enjoy it. 

Next time, I'm taking the next day off though! I'm exhausted.

Thanks to Ryan Wilhelm for the use of his photo. Click the image to head over to his flicker page.

 

Topic Tuesday #90 2014/04/08 - "XP's last update"

On October 25, 2001, Windows XP was released. It was based on the very stable core kernel of it's enterprise predecessor, Windows 2000. Now, a little over 12 years later, the most successful product Microsoft has ever released is at it's end of life. For real this time. They tried to kill it off several times, but the business community grew very reliant on the beloved operating system. Today it lives inside ATMs, nuclear power stations, enriching uranium, running mass spectrometers, air traffic control, voice dictation system, automated response gear, assembly lines, security system, lighted signs, and so much more. It is an interesting lesson in success, and how too much can be a bad thing.

You see, XP is not broken. There is nothing wrong with it. It runs great on older hardware and even better on new hardware. There was even a 64 bit version that could take advantage of lots of processors and RAM, though it was not popular and drivers were lacking, making it very niche. No... the reason to move on is not because it is even outdated. Security patches, right up to today and beyond for enterprise customers (at $1 Million a piece), keep it safe and even add new features. Surly the only real reason to move on and end the support drip is to force people to upgrade, and pay for the new operating system. This is very reminiscent of the Y2K incident we had in 1999. Almost noting was going to break then, and really, it wouldn't break now. 

OK, let's look at it without the hype. What will happen when the updates and security patches stop coming? If you run as a limited user, or are not on the internet at all with the machine (like it runs an ATM <they have dedicated connections to do their business, not the internet at large> or any task that does not require the internet, nothing will happen. Genuinely, nothing. They will keep on running as normal. What about grandma and grandpa? Yes, they are vulnerable, but they will likely always be vulnerable. If you click on that chain mail that was wanting you to do something and share this or that, they are taking an interactive action on that and giving access and explicit permission to do something, good or bad. If they are running as a User, and they always call you to install software or add a new bit of kit, like a scanner or printer, then it maybe the case they can't install it with their account and 95% of the infections that require administrative rights will fail to infect the machine. That is very good, as the remaining 5% may have been unavoidable. 

But we all want something new eventually, and now with Windows 7 and Windows 8.1, we have some great options. These options cost money, but many of the machines out there may need to be replaced. Enterprises do equipment refreshes on an annual basis, with hardware retirement falling off either at the end of the manufactures warranty period or a year or 2 after. This makes the typical refresh time about 4 years. For home users, this number is very different. Most folks let the machines run until they fail, and then they will make the mad dash to get a new machine and get up and running again. If this is your scenario, I recommend going back to one of our earlier posts on backing up your PC.

Don't get me wrong, I like the new operating systems. I am a power user and outgrew Windows XP a long time ago due to the memory restrictions. The point here is to not panic. 

If you feel no urgency in upgrading your machine or the software, get yourself off of the administrator account. There are lots of YouTube videos out there to help with setting up a limited user in Windows XP. Next, stop using INternet explorer, since it will not be updated anymore. Google's Chrome browser is feature rich and automatically updates. It is a very secure browser platform. Chrome can be a little resource intensive, so if your old machine is a little light on resources, try Mozilla Firefox. It too is feature rich and updates automatically. What ever browser you choose, just stop using IE. Be careful of everything you click on the web. The best way attackers have to get in is fooling you into clicking a link and letting them in. As a limited user you limit the ability of this attack. If you can uninstall Adobe Flash, Oracle's Java, and Adobe Acrobat platforms, you should. These are consistently rated the number one attack vectors for malicious software. 

Microsoft is extending support of their Security Essentials for XP product for another year. Come 2015, I hope you either are on a new machine or have installed a third party antivirus like AVG or Kapersky.

Play it safe out there, and if you need help, I know a guy.

Topic Tuesday #89 2014/04/01 - "April Fools!"

Topic Tuesday #89 2014/04/01 - "April Fools!"

   No, I'm not pranking you. Pulling pranks is a serious business and warrants a serious examination. I took the time to comb the web and see what was available on the origin of the foolishness. It seems hardly anyone knows where it came from or how it started and there have even been pranks pulled on the origin story itself.

I hit my old encyclopedias (yes, hard copy) and April Fools Day (according to the 1960 World Book encyclopedia), "The observance originated in France after the adoption of the Gregorian calendar. France was the first nation to adopt the new calendar introduced in 1564. Up to that time, the New Year celebration began March 21st amended April 1st. When New Year's Day was changed to January 1st, some people still celebrated it April 1st. These people came to be known as April fools. The custom of fooling friends and relatives on that day became popular in France and spread to other countries. It was widespread in England by the 1600's." Alex Boese of the website 

Museum of Hoaxes

, disagrees with this theory, pointing out that the French calendar reformation was in the late 1500s — after the Flemish poem was written. Also, the French never celebrated New Year's on the exact date of April 1, he said.

   One likely explanation is April Fools was "a hazing ritual" to welcome spring, said Boese, Many cultures celebrated the beginning of the new season with "mischief, misbehavior or deception," Boese told USA TODAY Network.

"Pranks are very much associated with the start of new things," he said.

   Recently a historian traced the practice back to Iran, and further back to the Persian new year (that happens to fall on April first in our Gregorian calendars) dating all the way back to 536 BC. It is called Sizdah Bedar and is thought to be the oldest pranking tradition still practiced. this seems to be the most accurate origin of the practice being linked to a certain day.

The questionable holiday is also popular in the United Kingdon (but generally pranks politely cease at noon). Australia, like America and other English speaking former colonies, don't particularly care about jokes ceasing at any given time.   Scotland colloquially calls it Hunt-the-Gowk Day (gowk translates to cuckoo or foolish person) and one of the favorite pranks is reminiscent of a chain mail joke where you pass it on to the next person.

   Many French speaking countries (note the cultural spread with language traditions) seem to have a thing for placing paper fish on people's backs.

   The Spanish also has a cultural practice of pranks, but not on April first. December 28th, which happens to be a Christian holiday called "Day of the Holy Innocents" is accompanied by pranks in Spain, Argentina, Mexico, and perhaps more (beware).If you hear a phrase with a translation of "Innocent / Gullible", you have been had.

   The Danish and Swedish pull pranks on May first

as well as

April first.

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! Have fun Everyone!

Topic Tuesday #88 2014/03/25 - "Religious Freedom of Corporations"

Topic Tuesday #88 2014/03/25 - "Religious Freedom of Corporations"

It was a busy day for the United States Supreme Court as they heard 90 minutes of arguments over what is universally referred to as the Hobby Lobby case (also includes the Mennonite-owned Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp.). In case you had not heard of this, the core question of the case is, "can the federal government require employers to provide 100% coverage for 20 types of contraception?"
Over 100 lawsuits have been filed. More than 80 amicus briefs were submitted, just for this case, by all sorts of religious organizations all bent of supporting the religious objections to contraception including IUDs and morning-after pills. Paul Clement, arguing for the corporations argued that the issue is "so fraught with religious controversy" that exceptions for the family-owned companies should be made since it was done for religious non-profits, such as churches, charities, and religious schools. The three female Justices were not amused.

Justice Sotomayor wondered whether other employers with religious objections would be able to opt out of covering other medical procedures, such as vaccines or blood transfusions.

"One religious group could opt out of this, and another religious group could opt out of that, and everything would be piecemeal, and nothing would be uniform," chimed in Justice Elena Kagan.

The general left side of the court questioned whether for-profit corps should be able to claim religious views. The right side, championed by Justice Scalia, wanted none of that argument, retorting, "There is not a single case which says that a for-profit enterprise cannot make a freedom-of-religion claim."

The reason this can even be an argument is thanks to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. It was designed to basically give companies the option to fight laws that their religious beliefs disagree with. The companies contend that for profit businesses should enjoy the same rights as people to exercise religious beliefs...
This makes me wonder when I will see a company wearing a yamaka and walking into a synagogue. Not likely... ever.

Of course... This is about the rather touchy issue of abortion. This being the root of their objection to four specific methods of birth control that prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. They claim that this is akin to abortion.  The amicus briefs from the reproductive rights organizations assert that the methods merely prevent fertilization by inhibiting ovulation or by preventing sperm from reaching the egg, thus preventing an unwanted pregnancy.

Now... it might not REALLY be about abortion, and more about the government forcing a company to pay for healthcare for their employees. This is the hot button that could have some impact. Not that much impact, as one way or another the law will remain nearly intact and female Americans will ultimately be covered for contraception, either by private insurers or the government.

But seriously... A "corporation" or "company", is not a person. A "company" should not be able to have religious views. A "company" cannot be tried for treason or executed. A "company" can't vote for elected officials, though it can contribute to a campaign. Ultimately, a "company" is an extension of the people that run it. These folks are just using it to either save money or force their views on their employees. Either way, not cool when it comes to health.

And what do you think?

Topic Tuesday #87 2014/03/18- "Cosmos"

Topic Tuesday #87 2014/03/18- "Cosmos"


Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, the reboot of the influential 13 episode Cosmos: A Personal Journey by Carl Sagan, has caused quite the stir. The second episode hits evolution, which in the United States in particular is a controversial subject. It shouldn't be, but it goes against the underpinnings of certain faiths. Many people that have chosen faith over fact and have chosen to argue for a few contradictory accounts of the way we got here to even be taught along side the real science of both the age of the Universe and modern biological sciences knowledge of evolution by natural selection. It is a problem here, this denial of science. The first episode of Cosmos' reboot had 15 seconds "accidentally" overdubbed. It just so happens to have lined up perfectly to censor the mention of the origin of life with a news promo by an affiliate station in the west, highlighting some hunting segment.
I will leave the rest of the commentary on how the rather vocal religious to other pundents, who have done a great job highlighting their folly.
Instead, I will leave you with an excerpt of the transcript from 40 minutes (without commercials) into the second show.
"Nobody knows how life got started. Most of the evidence from that time was destroyed by impacts and erosion. Science works on the frontier between knowledge and ignorance; not afraid to admit what we don't know. There's no shame in that. The only shame is to pretend that we have all the answers. Maybe someone watching this will be the first to solve the mystery of how life on Earth began." - Narrator, Neil deGrasse Tyson


Topic Tuesday #86 2014/03/11- "Poverty"

Have you ever had the wings at Outback? if you like wings, you should certainly give them a try. Plump and juicy with this dry rub breading... Delicious.
So... as I wait for my medium rare steak, let's talk about poverty.
Sounds like a crazy juxtaposition... oh good, my salad has arrived. Man, I forgot to have them hold the onions...
anyway... I have been thinking about many stories I hear around the world of the living conditions in various countries. Take India, as an example. On one side of the street, a 5 star hotel. On the other side, a shanty town complete with packs of wild dogs and people defecating on the side of the street. This story struck me as absurd. I listened on and it expanded to not just that city, which I thought it must have been. It was the entire country. Along the freeways tent villages were setup. There was even an accompanying clip of a market that was setup on a train track, and they just folded the awnings up and stood out of the way while the train passes extremely close to them, dropping the awning out the second the train has passed.
Oh good, my steak is here. I wish they would keep my drink refreshed better.
Where was I? OH yes, abject poverty in India, just as an example is everywhere and such a fact of life that most visitors, after becoming accustomed to the assault on their senses and sensibilities, just slowly give up... In trying to find a way to help the entire country... while guides are telling their charges to not give to the panhandlers, as their is a cartel beneath much of the beggar system. You will not be helping the poor child that asks for money. His legs were likely broken by his masters to make him better at pulling sympathetic dollars from their marks.
The government, in these cases, is commonly bought and paid for. There was a newspaper with coverage on reform and government aid availability to the poor. When this was mentioned to the guide, he scoffed and informed the tourist, that newspaper is in English, and few are literate and fewer in English. that article does not appear in my language. Followed this, he said, "the government is nice to have, if you can afford them."
Window dressing. The systemic problems of a caste system (which of course doesn't exist) relegates entire subsets of society into permanent servitude and poverty. Those in power, find it easy to keep their power and have no incentive to change the status quo.
So what is a middle class American tourist to do when faced with the harsh realities of the rest of the world? In many cases... Nothing. In this case, there was nothing they could do, but try to swallow it and move on and try to enjoy the purpose of the vacation.
Would you do something different? What about here at home in the USA, where there are still children that go hungry, families without a roof over their head who are hoping the government cheese is enough so they don't  have to shoplift food? What about them? Or the villages all over the world that don't have clean water?
It is a daunting problem. How would you fix it?

Topic Tuesday #85 2014/03/04 - "Text Books"

Topic Tuesday #85 2014/03/04 - "Text Books"

I stumbled on an article in Salon written by Katie Halper (whom I about to cite extensively) about some of the skewed things that are making it into text books around the United States. You may be aware of the kerfuffles in Texas over their routine revisioning of their text books (a 7 year refresh). Many things were threatened to be taken out of History books, Science was in great danger of being skewed by anti-science fundamentalists. Thankfully, that has been largely taken care of by the addition of a committee that consists of educators and experts, whose opinions are more valid than the lay person when it comes to proper education.
There is another issue that our nation faces. Many disagree with how the public education system is structured, or are in areas where the local school board has made a right mess of things. Because of this there are alternatives to public education; Private schools, Charter schools, Religious Parochial Schools, Montessori, and homeschooling to name the usual suspects. Here we have a divergence in the materials utilized by these alternatives to what I will otherwise refer to as "mainstream" public education standards. Montessori has specific methods and practices. Homeschooling can be done with mainstream tools sanctioned by the areas school board, but can be supplemented and subverted as long as regular testing scores come back positive. Some of these supplemental or alternatives to the mainstream materials are what is preferred by some of the private, charter and religiously affiliated institutions. Here is where we get into the danger zone.
As this article( http://www.salon.com/2014/03/04/7_absurd_things_americas_kids_are_learning_thanks_to_conservatives_partner/) on Salon points out, there are 3 big players in the religiously focused educational material business. A Beka Book, Bob Jones University Publishing, and ACE (Accelerated Christian Education). A Beka Book has the largest distribution (9,000+ schools) so is an obvious target for more fact finding. 
Let's run down what the author of the article found to be the 7 sins of this publisher, so far.

Mathematics:
The publishing company boasts that, “Unlike the ‘modern math’ theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, A Beka Book texts teach that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute.” “...traditional mathematics texts that are not burdened with modern theories such as set theory.“

Critical Thinking:
Like so many of Beka’s critical thinking tools, this one comes in the form of a mnemonic device: “Use the DISCERN method,” Beka instructs, “to determine whether abortion is biblical.” The method allows students to make an informed godly choice around any issue, not just abortion. Once they’ve figured out whether something is biblical or not, they can engage in it and praise it, or refrain from doing it and condemn it. Here’s how DISCERN works:
Determine your choices
Inquire of God through prayer
Search the scriptures
Consider godly counsel.
Eliminate worldly thinking.
Recognize God’s leading.
Never compromise the truth.

To see what REAL critical thinking is... I recommend a dictionary.  Or check this wiki out..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

Science:
"A non-Christian world view is any one that is based on the belief that there is something more reliable than the bible. The belief may come from church traditions scientific conclusions, or various theories. The most important teachings to be found in a Christian World View are… God made the world and everything in it; The world has fallen into a tragic state because of sin; and God is working to redeem this world to Himself.”
Science that contradicts these notions, the people at A Beka Book explain, is just plain wrong. “These three teachings should influence your interpretation of any facts you study,” they note. “And if you are serious about being a Christian, they must color your view of scientific thinking.”
Also crucial is the instruction not to stray from God’s path by using science to help people. “Others may be curious about the world of nature simply because they want to improve the lives of other humans. Although Christians should also be interested in that, they should mainly be interested in loving God through the study of nature.”

Guns:
“The founding fathers… understood that unarmed citizens would not be able to stand against a tyrannical government.” Gun control, according to this text, is simply a “gateway to tyranny.” The book’s exhaustive analysis of world history backs up this brilliant assertion: A study of Hitler’s, Stalin’s and Mao’s ideas on disarming their citizens shows… they were well aware of the concept that control thrives when people are unarmed.”
As an added bonus, guns are also a way for America to fight against creeping… globalism: “Armed citizens could also play a major role in thwarting Globalism, the idea to bring the world together under ‘one global government.’ making the constitution null and void.”

The Death Penalty
'America: Land I Love In Christian Perspective' laments that the death penalty, and thus the sanctity of life, have become less hip. Back in the good old days, because people believed in the sanctity of human life, most states practiced capital punishment.” Yeah... That makes sense...
 Sexually Transmitted Disease
Beka’s
'Health In Christian Perspective'
text also teaches that sexually transmitted diseases are caused by sacrilegious behavior: “Disobedience to God’s Word in the area of sexual purity can also lead to disease.” “Some infections, known as… STDs,  are almost always spread by direct bodily contact during illicit sexual relations (sexual relations outside God’s institution of marriage). People who live according to God’s standards of waiting until marriage to have sexual relations are very unlikely to acquire venereal diseases.”
Worth noting that Sex Ed is not on the list of curriculum, but there is some wacky checklist...

encouraging students to check boxes for things like, “I wash my hands thoroughly on a regular basis” and “I obey biblical principles regarding morality, self-control, attitude, and anxiety.” “Unchecked boxes” the book warns, “identify conditions of risk.”
Homosexuality
Homosexuality is listed under 'United States History—Heritage of Freedom In Christian Perspective’s'Cultural Decay” section: “Traditional American family values have dramatically declined….When [the family] comes under attack, all of society suffers.” “The media has increasingly belittled fathers and husbands, portrayed blatant violence, and laughed at immorality. One result has been the increased acceptance of homosexuality.”

 

As you should be able to reason out, this is completely out of touch, and should in no way be taught to future generations. It is obviously divisive, and many of my Christian readers will likely chime in and concur with how despicable it is to taint children with a distorted version of reality, even a Christian reality, as I know most Christians do not subscribe to this way of thinking. 

Beware what your children are learning. Ask questions. Take action. You, as a parent, are their only way to find a decent path to walk. The children are the future.