WHSV is running an article with an un-sourced claim that West Virginia children are dying from abuse/neglect at a much higher rate than in any other State. The anonymous reporter then goes on to claim that un-named experts all blame the problem on parents who abuse drugs and that the only solution is more of the same: beef up existing government programs.
At best, this is lazy reporting. At worst (as I suspect), it's an independent news outlet peddling government propaganda in an effort to secure more funding for failed programs like the welfare state and the drug war.
Let's assume this claim is true - and it very well could be since WV is known regionally for its high abuse rates of 'meth' and 'scrips' (according to Brandeis University, prescription drug abuse now kills more people than cocaine and heroin combined). The main problem here is that they fail to ask the hard questions, namely, is the problem cyclical?
How many of these addicts resorted to drugs in desperation at becoming parents unexpectedly, or to temporarily escape the pressures of trying to raise a child? Have you ever shooed away your bored, hungry, whiny kid in the morning until you could get that first cup of coffee in you? Slippery slope!
We preach to frightened, struggling girls/boys that 'abortion is murder' and that 'every child is a blessing', then we proceed to shun the task of nourishing that blessing off to government bureaucrats and contractors looking to make a buck. As long as there are children in America being neglected, we can't afford to bring democracy, protection, foreign aid or anything else to any other country or industry. It's time to get our priorities straight.
The fact is, prohibition doesn't work - whether it's drugs or underage sex. As long as there is a demand, there will always be a supplier. You can't force your morals on your child - let alone someone else's - because at the end of the day, your morals are just that: yours. All you can do is make an honest attempt to live by those morals, explain why, and hope that the example you set inspires them to do the same.
2012/12/28
2012/12/25
Technology can be frightening
There have been a couple of times when gathered around the kitchen table, a close relative would give their new phone number out to another relative and I'd take the liberty of entering their number into my own phone as well, albeit without explicitly asking permission or indicating that I was doing so. No harm done, and by the end of the visit we'd all most likely have shared our numbers anyway, but still... there was just something about the undertaking that felt a little... creepy. It makes you feel a little like you're eavesdropping or that you're some kind of personal-data peeping tom. Well, karma showed up today and kicked me right in the crotch.
This morning I finally gave in to Google's pestering pleas and set up my Google+ page. I say 'my' instead of 'a' because some time ago, Google took it upon itself to essentially create a Google+ social network account page for anyone already using one of its other services. That in and of itself has a creepy feel to it (along with an odor of desperation) but it gets worse.
Under the 'add friends' section of Google+ to view all suggested friends, it already had the names and email addresses of everyone in my phone's address book. If I had an Android phone, I'd probably think nothing of it, but I don't. I have an iPhone. And although I do have a gmail account that I rarely use, I have never (to my knowledge) given Gmail permission to trawl my phone's address book. The only explanation that I can think of is, at some point, perhaps I inadvertently gave my iPhone's Google Voice app permission to do so.
Which brings me to the frightening part of technology. Nearly every single phone number and email address in my phone was painstakingly entered there manually and yet, within the blink of an eye, it was able to wind up on a third party's server somewhere exposed to God knows who, without me having any memory of having given permission.
Now stop and think about all of the data you share on social networks - be it Google+, Facebook, Twitter or something else. You might have your account's privacy settings in perfect order... but have your friends taken the time to lock down their stuff? How do these networks function? Is it a case of 'a chain is only as strong as its weakest link'? Is it possible that the wide world has unfettered access to your contact info, photos, rants, etc., via the unlocked backdoor of your mother's Facebook account? I don't know the answer but I'd wager that those who do are in no hurry to reveal it.
This brings to mind a proposal I once read in which the author argued that all of this effort we put into safeguarding our privacy is a waste of time and money. He proposed that instead, we come up with a vast system in which there is absolutely zero privacy for anyone anywhere anytime regarding any subject. Under his theoretical system there would be no need to encrypt your online purchase details to protect your credit card number because, to access your transaction or info under his system, it would be theoretically impossible for the culprit to hide his/her own identity. It's an interesting idea but as the old saying goes, "there's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip".
This morning I finally gave in to Google's pestering pleas and set up my Google+ page. I say 'my' instead of 'a' because some time ago, Google took it upon itself to essentially create a Google+ social network account page for anyone already using one of its other services. That in and of itself has a creepy feel to it (along with an odor of desperation) but it gets worse.
Under the 'add friends' section of Google+ to view all suggested friends, it already had the names and email addresses of everyone in my phone's address book. If I had an Android phone, I'd probably think nothing of it, but I don't. I have an iPhone. And although I do have a gmail account that I rarely use, I have never (to my knowledge) given Gmail permission to trawl my phone's address book. The only explanation that I can think of is, at some point, perhaps I inadvertently gave my iPhone's Google Voice app permission to do so.
Which brings me to the frightening part of technology. Nearly every single phone number and email address in my phone was painstakingly entered there manually and yet, within the blink of an eye, it was able to wind up on a third party's server somewhere exposed to God knows who, without me having any memory of having given permission.
Now stop and think about all of the data you share on social networks - be it Google+, Facebook, Twitter or something else. You might have your account's privacy settings in perfect order... but have your friends taken the time to lock down their stuff? How do these networks function? Is it a case of 'a chain is only as strong as its weakest link'? Is it possible that the wide world has unfettered access to your contact info, photos, rants, etc., via the unlocked backdoor of your mother's Facebook account? I don't know the answer but I'd wager that those who do are in no hurry to reveal it.
This brings to mind a proposal I once read in which the author argued that all of this effort we put into safeguarding our privacy is a waste of time and money. He proposed that instead, we come up with a vast system in which there is absolutely zero privacy for anyone anywhere anytime regarding any subject. Under his theoretical system there would be no need to encrypt your online purchase details to protect your credit card number because, to access your transaction or info under his system, it would be theoretically impossible for the culprit to hide his/her own identity. It's an interesting idea but as the old saying goes, "there's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip".
2012/12/24
In Defense Of The Second Amendment
Gary North goes over the history of the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms and explains why it is essential to a free society.
My only point of contention is, Mr. North argues that an armed revolution against central government is not necessary, so long as American citizens still possess the right to keep and bear arms. If that is true, then we got a justifiable excuse to revolt in 1968 with the passage of GCA'68.
Truth is, there are so many local, state and federal restrictions on the Second Amendment that it's basically nothing more than a toothless wolf-hound. In some places in America, this 'right' ceases to exist beyond the borders of your property and, doesn't even exist within your property if that property is equipped with wheels and a license plate. Until it is once again legal for me to walk permit-free, into the tax-funded U.S. Capitol building with loaded, holstered pistol on my belt, I consider the Second Amendment unlawfully revoked by the federal government - along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Am I calling for a revolt? No. I'm saying that the right to defend one's life and property is the most basic of human rights. History has shown us repeatedly that once a government strips its citizens of this right (and it always starts incrementally), all the other human rights eventually get revoked or converted to trivial privileges. Ask yourself why the attitude among riot cops is different at armed Tea Party protests than it is at disarmed Occupy protests?
To quote a line from V For Vendetta: "people shouldn't fear their governments, governments should fear their people."
In Defense Of The Second Amendment by Gary North
My only point of contention is, Mr. North argues that an armed revolution against central government is not necessary, so long as American citizens still possess the right to keep and bear arms. If that is true, then we got a justifiable excuse to revolt in 1968 with the passage of GCA'68.
Truth is, there are so many local, state and federal restrictions on the Second Amendment that it's basically nothing more than a toothless wolf-hound. In some places in America, this 'right' ceases to exist beyond the borders of your property and, doesn't even exist within your property if that property is equipped with wheels and a license plate. Until it is once again legal for me to walk permit-free, into the tax-funded U.S. Capitol building with loaded, holstered pistol on my belt, I consider the Second Amendment unlawfully revoked by the federal government - along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Am I calling for a revolt? No. I'm saying that the right to defend one's life and property is the most basic of human rights. History has shown us repeatedly that once a government strips its citizens of this right (and it always starts incrementally), all the other human rights eventually get revoked or converted to trivial privileges. Ask yourself why the attitude among riot cops is different at armed Tea Party protests than it is at disarmed Occupy protests?
To quote a line from V For Vendetta: "people shouldn't fear their governments, governments should fear their people."
In Defense Of The Second Amendment by Gary North
2012/12/21
Cato's Police Misconduct NewsFeed 12-20-12
Unwarranted search, ordering a hit on a fellow officer, soliciting a minor for sex, resisting arrest, DUI and sexual assault.
National Police Misconduct NewsFeed Daily Recap 12-20-12
National Police Misconduct NewsFeed Daily Recap 12-20-12
3D Printer Turns Digital Audio Files Into Vinyl
The audio quality still needs work but if you miss Vinyl LPs (I don't), check out the video at the link. What I'd like to see is an update on the record player that used lasers instead of a needle.
3D printed record puts a new spin on digital music (video)
3D printed record puts a new spin on digital music (video)
CinemaNow To Allow You To Store Your DVDs In The Cloud
Looks like for $5 you can store a copy of your DVD on CinemaNow's servers? Not exactly sure how this will work but I created an UltraViolet account to get a downloadable SD copy of Underworld Awakening that I could watch on my PC. Contrary to what they insinuate, the 'digital copy' was not stored on the DVD but had to be downloaded from Sony. It's a pain in the butt and as mentioned in the comments at the source, the problem with services like these is that they can turn it off at any time and you're essentially up the creek without a paddle. Better option: allow us to transfer or convert a DRM-free copy straight to our PCs from the DVD.
Best Buy's CinemaNow opens home disc-to-digital program, makes cloud copies of DVDs for a fee
Best Buy's CinemaNow opens home disc-to-digital program, makes cloud copies of DVDs for a fee
Intro
I'm a news junkie with a Google Reader account. I especially like tech news and sharing these articles with friends. Problem is, nobody likes having a manure truck full of long-winded articles dumped on their email inbox and I don't do Facebook. Twitter is interesting but even then, there's the issue of someone trying to find the time to browse through an article in which they may or may not be interested.
Hopefully this blog will serve as way for friends to get a quick summary of news stories that they too will find interesting.
Hopefully this blog will serve as way for friends to get a quick summary of news stories that they too will find interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)