Friday, November 28, 2014

Living in the new Progressive Era

The 21st century has ushered in so many great changes and advances in all areas of science, communication, entertainment, and medicine. It does however trouble me that we have over the last 14 years become a nation so polarized, so divided, and so skittish and politically correct that it amazes me we can even function at all.

There seems to be no middle ground in the arenas of health care, abortion, women's rights, racism, sexism, gay name it, you are on one side or another; and even if you aren't taking sides, you are bombarded with the nonsense all day, every day. How is it that we are doing so little progressing in the new era of progressive politics?

If you aren't for gay marriage you are homophobic. It's an opinion on a definition of a concept that has both legal and religious ties. Having and opinion on it doesn't make you afraid of gay people. This whole argument seems to hinge on the fact that there seems to be an unspoken law that dictates that you must be an unwavering fan of homosexuality and all it entails or else you are clearly against them and therefore branded under the catch-all term if 'homophobic.' What a ridiculous sentiment.

If you think a black man screaming "kill whitey" is wrong, you are a racist because the new sentiment is that black people are incapable of being racist because they 'don't have the power'. Really? Have you heard of Barack Obama? Condoleeza Rice? Clarence Thomas? Oprah Winfrey and Michael Jordan are both highly influential and both are BILLIONAIRES! Black CEO's are starting to be been not just in every area of business, but in fortune 500 companies such as Microsoft , Merck, American Express, and McDonald's.

John W. Thompson is the current independent chairmen of the board of directors of Microsoft and has served as chairman of such companies as Virtual Instruments and Symanctec Corp. The list is not extensive, but it does show that the notion that black people have no power is nonsense. Sure there are millions of black who live in poverty and have no power...welcome to America. I Am a white man who is also not in the millionaires club nor do I have any power other then the lights in my apartment.

The notion that racism happens to blacks more than whites may or may not be true; but I live in a pretty diverse area and have heard a very large amount of anti-white sentiment come from the mouths of African Americans, so I find this notion hard to believe.  Also, the constant picking apart of peoples speech and actions to try and find some kind of hidden racism in seemingly innocuous things only serves to exaggerate and inflame the situation, not alleviate it.

Abortion rights activists have become especially vocal in the age of Obamacare and their arguments range from speculative to downright absurd. I have heard every kind of argument from the highly flawed 'violinist' theory to the morphing of the language to remove pro-choice to become 'women's rights' to one woman arguing on a blog about abortion claiming that 'you can't kill something that isn't even alive.' What the hell is your definition of alive lady???

Do women have a right to control their own bodies? Yes.

Do they have the right to have an abortion? Yes.

Should they have the right to kill a fully formed, sentient fetus? I don't believe so as I do not believe in the killing of sentient beings. But hey that's just me..and Buddha, and his 500 million+ followers, so there's no need to take us seriously.

Should women have the right to use abortion as a form of birth control? NO! Use a little common sense and responsibility instead of a closed mind and an open vagina.condoms, birth control, and other contraceptives are cheap and readily available in most drug and grocery stores. We can't simply ignore personal responsibility in the name of convenience. Sure, we have the freedom to do so, but we as a moral people should be opposed to such behavior.

The worst is yet to come. However, without sounding too pessimistic we are going to endure many more years of this nonsense until it is finally balanced out with reason and the eventual weariness of the public to an all too gargantuan war cry of intolerance, hatred, racism, sexism, and homophobia; when in reality most of us just want to live in peace, or be left alone, and the rest will continue to pretend that their weak words or deeds will ever give rise to the 'Old South' again and we will laugh and continue about our business in a world free of progressive diatribes that stink of hypocrisy and tired agendas.

Have we had enough intolerance? Sure, unless their is wedding cake involved
Have we had enough racism? Absolutely, unless white people are to blame
Have we had enough sexism? I guess, unless you're confused about your gender 

You get the idea. It's reaching a boiling point and the recent Ferguson protests are a prime example of Americans waking up to the ongoing issues plaguing the black community and the unwillingness of the black leadership and the media to offer solutions instead of the endless coverage of events that only seems to make matters worse.

Saturday, November 15, 2014

Net Neutrality : A Bad Idea or Freedom for All?

I've written extensively on Net Neutrality in the past. But this thing just keeps cropping up and frankly it's getting quite annoying. I'm afraid that too many people simply do not understand the implications behind the innocuous sounding bill. It doesn't keep the internet free for all, it simply opens another portal for the federal government into the free range internet that we need to keep fighting to keep free.

Forget the phrase' Net Neutrality.' It's just a buzz word meant to illicit a passionate response. It is, in essence simply a piece of legislation designed to prohibit ISP's from holding bandwidth hostage unless a particular target group pays more money. Also the concept of Net Neutrality would prevent ISP's from simply oppressing bandwidth on protocols such as Torrents or P2P file sharing. The problem is not in the idea, it's in the implementation. In the past few years numerous bills, under the guise of net neutrality has come and gone including the failed 2010 FCC penned 'open internet' order.

The content of any piece of legislation is key to making a final determination on if it should be implemented or not. While on the surface it may seem benign, there may be parts of the bill or vague wordings therein that could allow the government or a particular private company to bend or break the rules for their own gain. This is an all too common issue with such types of legislation and is the reason bills like SOPA and PIPA were shot down, and why many people were disgusted with the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine' touted by butt-hurt Democrats whose radio shows were miserable failures and needed a way to try and limit the Conservative dominance of the airwaves.

Before anyone gets all giddy because porn stars are making viral videos to try and explain the awesomeness of net neutrality, it might be in your best interest to actually read the content of an proposed internet bills and see if it sounds as fair in meat as it is in skin. You can title a bill anything you want and the content can be completely different. That is how Washington works and you'd do well to remember it.

I have always been vehemently opposed to any legislation that restricts, prohibits, expands, or contracts any of the rights inherent in the wide open wilderness of the world wide web. I don't care what criminal activity you are trying to curb, governments should have no more than cursory access to any data on the internet that is not meant to be public.

If you bust a company for selling child porn  over the internet you should have access to the data on their machines and any information that can be obtained from those assets. You should be able to subpoena the phone and internet records for the named defendants only, and you should never have access to the whole of any data owned by any ISP or hosting provider that is not an indicted party. Even if say- GOOGLE was indicted in a lawsuit about pirated material, the brunt of user data should be off-limits. Search histories and sites accessed for non-defendants should be sealed and unusable.

No government should ever have the right to turn off or otherwise restrict internet access even in an emergency situation like we saw in the highly improbable action film 'Live Free or Die Hard.' The problem in America however is peoples lack of interest in the actual working of government. They hear the call of their political masters and do what they say without much thought of their own. They are ignorant of the content of the bills they helped to get passed nor are they fully aware of the rights and freedoms they sign away on a regular basis in the name of 'fairness' 'equality' or the 'common good.' All words that have hidden meanings in the minds of very rich men with only their own interests at heart. Money and power motivate these people and not your rights or freedoms.