Monday, May 01, 2006

I swear I'm not anti Mexico :)

On this day of work protest of our lower hemisphere friends, I ask you.

Do you think if Americans were to go into Mexico and demand dual languages, work, citizenship, healthcare, education, and other amenities that they would be as tolerant of us?

Do you really think this situation would fly any where else?

There are constant wars and mass genocide all around the world for actions and demands similar to those these illegal immigrants are making.

It's amazing people feel this sort of entitlement simply because they share a border.

Mexican legalizing Cocaine

There is a bill going before President Fox of Mexico that is going to legalize small amount of illegal drugs.

They say it will help them focus on the big players instead of dealing with small time criminals.

They are not taking down the big time dealers now and they never will. In fact, all this does is increase the money the dealers will make.

Can anyone say "pay-off?"

The Mexican government is already corrupt, and there's no reason it will change until the people make it change.

Monday, April 10, 2006

Cell Phone/Coffee Maker

Convergence is one thing in society that we normally conceive as a good thing, yet it is often wasted on the wrong things. Marketing has found that overall time and time again overall people don't want a high priced printer/fax/copier/scanner/coffee maker. We want technology that works. Forget about what it can or can not do. As we get older we want something that is dependable and for good reasons. What if one functions of the do-all machines break? What are we left with? Just a coffee maker. Or more importantly what if the coffee maker functions dies? ... I don't even want to think of that!!

My point is... yes it's cool to have a phone/camera/video/pizza slicer. But with convergence you always have trade offs, like bad pictures, poor video, and fused pizza slices. 90% of the time what do you use the Cell phone for? A Clock and Talking. I don't need a multifucntion phone. I need a phone that still works in buildings, and low valleys. I need reception, not a pizza slicer.

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

US rejects changes to net control

The European Union (EU) backed proposals that control of the net should be under a more representative body.

"We will not agree to the UN taking over the management of the internet," said Ambassador David Gross, the US coordinator for international communications and information policy at the State Department. "Some countries want that. We think that's unacceptable."

The UN's WGIG (Working Group on Internet Governance) has suggested four alternatives:

  • Option One - create a UN body known as the Global Internet Council that draws its members from governments and "other stakeholders" and takes over the US oversight role of Icann.

  • Option Two - no changes apart from strengthening Icann's Governmental Advisory Committee to become a forum for official debate on net issues.

  • Option Three - relegate Icann to a narrow technical role and set up an International Internet Council that sits outside the UN. US loses oversight of Icann

  • Option Four - create three new bodies. One to take over from Icann and look after the net's addressing system. One to be a debating chamber for governments, businesses and the public; and one to co-ordinate work on "internet-related public policy issues".

I came across this on the BBC website while surfing through news stories. At first I didn't think much of it, but as I began reading I thought to myself, "This is a pretty big deal!" This isn't really being talked about in mainstream news. I haven't heard a single thing, haven't seen it on a news ticker, and newspaper headlines are no where to be found.

First of all the United States invented the Internet. We are the ones who largely funded the whole thing in its infancy. We go this thing off and running! Why should we give over management to the U.N.? The U.N. regulatory approach would shift the view of the internet from a private sector approach to a governmental, control from the top approach. Also, can anyone give me a success of the U.N. involving this sort of thing? All the U.N. appears good at is stealing money, sucking up to the dictatorship of Arabs, and its members act opposite of the creed in which they took. Why would we want them to control the single most liberating technology in the world? The UN contains members opposed to free speech, they should never be put in charge of anything to do with personal expression. Letting delegates from Cuba, Iran and Tunisia decide on the principles for an open and democratic Internet would be an even worse alternative.

I agree with McCullagh from Cnet who wrote. "Turning over control of key Internet functions to the U.N. would invite a debacle. This is the bureaucracy that gave rise to the Oil for Food scandal and counts as its major accomplishment in the last decade a failed attempt at nation-building in Somalia. U.N. control would usher in higher fees for domain names--to pay for development aid to third-world nations with dysfunctional governments."

I personally think this is simply an attack of the U.S. as a super power. If the internet was started by any other country in the world no one would dare think to ask them to give control over to them. No one would dare ask a company to give control over control to another group of companies, it's insanity! For example, "Hey Mr. Microsoft we see that your Windows idea really took off and... we think its a good idea for you to let us take over now."

This is simply a case jealous countries who did not, or ever will have the foresight or the political atmosphere to allow something such as the internet to exist.

Monday, April 03, 2006

"Flight 93" & Illegal Immigration.

I recently saw the trailer for "Flight 93" a the local movie complex. Of course it instantly brought to me a flood of images, emotions, and memories. The only day that compares to it could either be Pearl Harbor, or the Kennedy assassination. At 22 I'm obviously not old enough to remember either, but from what I've heard relatives say they remember those day's almost as if they had a photographic memory. 9/11 has had the same impact on me. I can remember my teacher explaining why middle easterners have developed this hatred of America. Those who had quit smoking suddenly lit up again. I remember watching the second tower being struck as I was watching the news. But, above all I felt this unyielding anger against those who did this, mixed with patriotism and compassion for those who were directly effected by it.

But, the reality is as for most Americans, I was not forever changed, by 9/11. It is true I'll never forget it, but the next day, or week following everything was back to normal. Yet for those who live in New York, that were on Flight 93, and those who died at the Pentagon, they will never be the same. Their lives will constantly be a reminder of that day.

Today as I read the paper talking about immigration I can't help but remember those who attacked us were illegal immigrants with visas long expired. Granted the article is talking about mostly Mexican illegals but the problem does include all illegal immigrants.
They come to our country to our country to escape their own and I can't fault them for that, but instead of asking what can we do about illegal immigration we should be asking what is prompting them to come here?

Just for starters Mexico has a 40% poverty rate. (and poverty is not the same in Mexico as it is here) Mexico appears to be democratic but in all actuality a minority controls the majority of wealth and policies the country produces.
Those in power stay in power by reinforcing the existing structure of the organization. History tells us that this will continue to happen unless the people do something about it.

It is probably not completely far fetched to say that it is in part our fault that Mexico is the way it is because of our lackadaisical border protection. It's not initially our fault that Mexico has a 40% poverty rate, but it may be our fault a revolution hasn't taken place.

I believe granting amnesty to illegal immigrants will do nothing but perpetuate the problem, as it has for the last 40 years. We need to enforce the laws that are on the books now instead of rewarding those who have committed a crime. But instead we have politicians who are to scared to do a single thing about it simply because they are scared to offend a fast growing demographic.
(Pardon the vagueness, but) Recently when the "Port Deal" was being considered Americans spoke up and said they did not want this deal to go through because it would cause our ports to become less safe than they already are. Congress responded accordingly, turning down the deal from the United Arab Emirates. Proving they can act quickly. Yet they continually never respond with the same intensity with illegal immigration and other problems.
This is both a Democratic problem and a republicans problem. The Dems because they want votes and the GOP because they want cheap labor. How quickly they forget what they are in office to do. Protect, Serve, and Defend. Not placate to people living outside this country or living illegally in it.

My point is nothing new, Politicians and D.C. is full of itself. They are more interested in getting reelected than doing what they should be doing. They will never think of anyone except themselves just like the Mexican government.

I would not wish this on anyone and I do not condone the use of terrorism for political maneuvering, yet you can't help but wonder that if Flight 93 had made it to D.C. and had hit the Capital Building just how different Congress would act and just how different out country would be.

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

The Olympics or the water squirrel?

As I was doing a observation for a class on the evening news I noticed the Olympic segment lasted about 4 minutes and was only ousted by IU Basketball which ran about 4min/45sec. But let’s face it were in southern Indiana, that's normal. Yet, with a lead-off story like “The Olympics coming to an end,” it’s pretty obvious who the affiliate is networked to. But, come on, at least try to hide your commercialism and branding a little. I understand that they paid big bucks to have this thing on their network, but no one is watching this year and no one cares about the “Today Show” set being torn down and I’m sorry but interview at the end of the telecast with Tom Brokaw is not going to interest to “Stay tuned.” How is that news worthy? I’d be more interested in a piece about the Stock Market or that Squirrel’s baby cousin who learned how to water ski too. Hey, it could happen. Maybe it’s a genetic thing.

Sunday, February 26, 2006

Planes Mess Me Up

I'm not sure why this happens, but once I step onto a plane all my senses are dulled except for my emotions. Some stewardess could be standing over me yelling, "SIR, ARE YOU SURE YOU DON'T WANT ANOTHER CARDBOARD FLAVORED COOKIE?!" and I would not notice. The baby next to me could be bawling his/her eyes out and unloading god-knows-what in his/her diaper but nothing will be picked up by my ears/nose. Everything is a haze. I feel so useless. I imagine it might be the same feeling if my 24 year old brain were transplanted into 5 year-old kid's body who wore coke-bottle glasses, had Crisco jammed into his ears and socks duct-taped around his hands. But even with these dumbed-down senses, when it comes to the emotions I feel like…like…some super-feeling-superman. Let me try to explain:

I was watching this movie title "Saint Ralph", a touching story of a young troublemaker who is convinced he needs a miracle to snap his mother out of a coma. He gets it in his head that winning the Boston marathon would be a miracle sufficient enough to wake up his mother, so he starts to train (against his Catholic headmaster's orders). I won't spoil the ending for anyone, but I will say the acting of our young hero is on par with Keanu in Speed (and the others 'actors' rank somewhere between Norm McDonald in Dirty Work and Dennis Hoper in Mario Brothers). And even with the deck stacked against "Saint Ralph" I found myself tearing up at the Boston Marathon scene, hoping the gentleman next to me did not see the watery eyes or more importantly the movie causing them.

Thursday, February 23, 2006

Super-Repellent Plastic

Researchers at GE have come up with a way to process a common polymer so that it repels fluid, even drops of honey that role right off. The resulting property is called "superhydrophobicity" or extreme repelling of water-based fluids beyond even that of a freshly waxed car. Several existing engineered materials behave this way; the GE accomplishment is noteworthy because it was done with an inexpensive plastic. This means that if applied to everyday products any amount of waste would be eliminated. Most product we use, such as Ketchup, honey, shampoo, and shower gel bottles would flow freely giving you exactly what you paid for. Cars which have plastic bodies would be cleaner. Water slides at theme parks would be faster. Blood given would be completely used. The list could go on and on.

This caused me to think. (There may me a product out there that does this, but I'm not aware of it.) What about a plastic or metal (plastic would be easier) that repelled dust, Sort of an anti static electricity solution. It would obviously have something to do with repelling electrons in dust particles. All of your electronic equipment in your home would be dust free! I don't know how important this is to everyone, but I think if someone developed a spray that eliminated dusting in a house for a period longer than normal cleaning requires. They may have something. But I doubt the companies that sell cleaning solutions would like that much. Or people who clean houses for a living.