Monday, September 17, 2012
Is militarizing our state and local police forces a good thing?
Reality is always uglier than the virtual reality we all spend hours watching on cop TV.Over the last decade shows featuring the police have flourished, and police agencies of all descriptions have been glorified. Since no one dares question the "hero" status our men in blue achieved during the 9/11/2001 crisis, the light shining upon these public servants is positively glowing at all times.
Let's get back to reality. Deaths due to officer involved shootings are at an all-time high countrywide. In fact, a new method of suicide, coined suicide by cop, has become a legitimate reason for police officers to gun down unarmed citizens. For a few horrifying incidents visit this site: http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.com/police/brutality.html
Incidents like those on many college campuses of police abuse of pepper spray, and tazer abuse by law enforcement officers all over the country are spiraling out of control. Tactics employed by the Mayor of New York City to disband the Occupy Wall Street movement were absolutely draconian. Consider this. New York City has the third largest standing army on the planet. The city is under police control and the police are controlled by just one man, the mayor.
Although we would like to believe we are in control of our country’s private armies nothing could be further from the truth. That delusion is similar to the delusion that “we the people” control our own military forces. Somehow the right to wage war has been usurped from Congress, which was given the right under the constitution, and has been revested in the office of the President. We avoid a conflict between our government’s branches by no longer declaring war; We just start bombing whoever our President decides is the “enemy”. One man now controls the largest military force in the history of the planet. The last decade of Presidential warfare gives ample proof of concept; and ample proof of abuse of power.
As police departments everywhere gain more power and influence, the abuse of that power by individual people becomes irresistible. We all have causes, and what is the point of accumulating power if you can't use it to further your own causes? Right? If a police officer should have a racial, sex, or religious bias instilled from birth it will be impossible to control. Racial profiling, so rampant in the South, is already an accepted practice and written into law in Arizona. The tendency for geographical regions to propose their own brand of law and social justice recently surfaced when Texas politicians started making succession type noises over immigration policy.
The possibility of a local style civil war occurring over immigration or racial issues is never far from the surface. As local police departments accumulate more and more power regional tensions will increase. The probability of armed conflict or organized military style activity breaking out along our Southern border increases daily.
As we bring home our brainwashed and battle hardened trained soldiers we find it difficult to assimilate these “heros” back into society. They become employed in paramilitary style organizations; the police, the private security industry, bounty hunting organizations, and investigation agencies are a few choices. What is it we expect to happen when millions of people seasoned by war are turned loose in our society? Can more "Rambo" style mass murder situations fail to happen? The suicide rate among returning veterans has never been higher. Is this a good thing?
The truth is war is hell on earth. We have a barbarian practice of subjecting millions of our most highly impressionable youths to military style brainwashing. This is required training to survive a tour of duty ending in incredibly hostile territory, and renders those soldiers unable to cope in a normal society. Life's millions of decisions can overwhelm soldiers not used to having choices. These people have been programmed to follow orders and in the absence of such a controlled environment they are like pool balls caroming around the country without borders to restrict their behavior or to give them direction.
Killing people, even if you are following the direct order of a government, does not make actions of that nature sane, honorable, or even legal. We discovered after World War II that "just following orders" was no excuse for those involved. Everyone captured for war crimes was convicted and hanged. Just how faulty an excuse “murder by following orders” became should have been burned into our psyche forever. Alas, the lesson barely lasted a single generation.
So here in this country our future is certain. We will become an increasingly more violent nation. Civil unrest will rise to levels not seen since the Vietnam era. Budgets will be strained by paranoid state and local governments attempting to protect themselves from civilian unrest by adding ever more people to the government side of the equation. All that additional manpower and waste of money will accomplish will be to increase tensions.
So as our upper crust achieves the excesses of the Roman Empire at its height and glory, our empire, as did the Roman Empire, will continue to crumble. Either we become a peaceful nation without the need for an excessive military and police force, or we will explode under the weight of those forces as all empires before ours have done.
Friday, June 15, 2012
Staring into the face of the future…
And the face that stares back at you is not human! How does this concept grab you?
Star surrounded by a dust cloud
I looked at the likely possibilities the future could hold for us. Of course there will be medical “miracles” and technological improvements. Nanotechnology will shrink electronics to the point where implants in our eyes, ears, and limbs will enhance our engagement with our world. To the expression "better living through chemistry" we can now add the expression “better living through nanotechnology”.
As a result of our continuous wars, advances in prosthetics are giving people new arms and legs. Some people are now able to compete in downhill skiing and long-distance running on these artificial limbs. Soon the government will probably propose the addition of some magnetic ink in the form of a nanobot inserted somewhere under our skin to keep better track of us.
Aimee Mullins Howard Schatz via aimeemullins.com
Much of the debate on the place of advanced prostheses for the disabled in competitive sports often downplays arguably the most important perspective: that of the athletes who couldn't compete without them.
Developments like man/machine interfaces, growing our own replacement organs, and genetically enhancing our own natural abilities are easy to predict. I go one step further though. I predict the big one, the monumental, astronomical, Google to the nth degree biggie. I predict we discover evidence of other life beyond our immediate solar system. I do concede it is likely we are the only living forms of life circling our sun at the moment.
That may not have always been the case. Mars, for example, being much further from the sun, would've cooled off and turned into a water world as many as 1 billion years before Earth cooled to the point where it could sustain life in its most primitive forms.
The more we learn, the more we realize that life might have begun elsewhere and just landed in our solar system, by accident (or by fate if you prefer) after riding on an asteroid from who knows where.
Here are a few photos taken by Hubble. Ours is one beautiful universe!
For a look at the entire photo album follow this link: http://hubblesite.org/gallery/wallpaper/
As science marches forward, Western religions are digging in their heels and, as incredible as it seems, still insisting the universe is only a few thousand years old. In fact, some polls in America indicate that a majority of our citizens believe in the theory of divine creation.
In order to retain these archaic beliefs religion is interfering with politics. Religious leaders are heavily involved in insisting creation be imprinted on our young school-age minds. To accomplish this they seem to have taken control of the content in most school textbooks in use today. Instead of focusing on the future of technology and its impact on civilization, they attempt to brainwash future generations into irrationally clinging to the past.
This may explain why we're falling behind the rest of the world in the important disciplines of math and science. It may explain why we have to import thousands of people to work in our high-tech industries. American schools are failing to provide the education necessary to supply the human capital required to fill these types of jobs. This is shameful policy that needs to be corrected before we fall further behind the rest of the planet in these critical areas.
A recent movie release titled, "Paul", brings us back to the concept that we are not alone in the universe. If you have not yet had a chance to see this movie you should put it on your agenda. The movie points out that if we were the only source of life in the universe it would be the most incredible waste of space imaginable. For those who believe in the "intelligent design" concept this fact alone stands in absolute contradiction to the “intelligent” part of the equation. After all, what would be intelligent about creating billions of galaxies and trillions of solar systems and then allowing life to exist in just one of them?
To my way of thinking that would be the stupidest “intelligent” design possible and the worst utilization of a brand-new universe imaginable. Surely a "God" could and would do better.
http://www.parmsplace.com
Star surrounded by a dust cloud
I looked at the likely possibilities the future could hold for us. Of course there will be medical “miracles” and technological improvements. Nanotechnology will shrink electronics to the point where implants in our eyes, ears, and limbs will enhance our engagement with our world. To the expression "better living through chemistry" we can now add the expression “better living through nanotechnology”.
As a result of our continuous wars, advances in prosthetics are giving people new arms and legs. Some people are now able to compete in downhill skiing and long-distance running on these artificial limbs. Soon the government will probably propose the addition of some magnetic ink in the form of a nanobot inserted somewhere under our skin to keep better track of us.
Aimee Mullins Howard Schatz via aimeemullins.com
Much of the debate on the place of advanced prostheses for the disabled in competitive sports often downplays arguably the most important perspective: that of the athletes who couldn't compete without them.
Developments like man/machine interfaces, growing our own replacement organs, and genetically enhancing our own natural abilities are easy to predict. I go one step further though. I predict the big one, the monumental, astronomical, Google to the nth degree biggie. I predict we discover evidence of other life beyond our immediate solar system. I do concede it is likely we are the only living forms of life circling our sun at the moment.
That may not have always been the case. Mars, for example, being much further from the sun, would've cooled off and turned into a water world as many as 1 billion years before Earth cooled to the point where it could sustain life in its most primitive forms.
The more we learn, the more we realize that life might have begun elsewhere and just landed in our solar system, by accident (or by fate if you prefer) after riding on an asteroid from who knows where.
Here are a few photos taken by Hubble. Ours is one beautiful universe!
For a look at the entire photo album follow this link: http://hubblesite.org/gallery/wallpaper/
As science marches forward, Western religions are digging in their heels and, as incredible as it seems, still insisting the universe is only a few thousand years old. In fact, some polls in America indicate that a majority of our citizens believe in the theory of divine creation.
In order to retain these archaic beliefs religion is interfering with politics. Religious leaders are heavily involved in insisting creation be imprinted on our young school-age minds. To accomplish this they seem to have taken control of the content in most school textbooks in use today. Instead of focusing on the future of technology and its impact on civilization, they attempt to brainwash future generations into irrationally clinging to the past.
This may explain why we're falling behind the rest of the world in the important disciplines of math and science. It may explain why we have to import thousands of people to work in our high-tech industries. American schools are failing to provide the education necessary to supply the human capital required to fill these types of jobs. This is shameful policy that needs to be corrected before we fall further behind the rest of the planet in these critical areas.
A recent movie release titled, "Paul", brings us back to the concept that we are not alone in the universe. If you have not yet had a chance to see this movie you should put it on your agenda. The movie points out that if we were the only source of life in the universe it would be the most incredible waste of space imaginable. For those who believe in the "intelligent design" concept this fact alone stands in absolute contradiction to the “intelligent” part of the equation. After all, what would be intelligent about creating billions of galaxies and trillions of solar systems and then allowing life to exist in just one of them?
To my way of thinking that would be the stupidest “intelligent” design possible and the worst utilization of a brand-new universe imaginable. Surely a "God" could and would do better.
http://www.parmsplace.com
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Fair Game?
Fair Game?
A recent segment on 60 Minutes put a spotlight on an interesting philosophical battle going on between two groups of people supposedly working for the same cause, the conservation of endangered species. The battle is over exotic animals and the battleground is in Texas. On the one side we have 5000 cattle ranchers raising endangered and exotic species. This group, represented by Charly Seale, executive director of the Exotic Wildlife Association of Texas, has been successful at increasing some exotic herds to the point where they are no longer endangered. In the opposite corner, but on the same side of the street supposedly, is the "Friends of Animals", an international animal rights organization led by Priscilla Feral.
What the argument and seven-year legal battle is about is how these animals are being used by the ranchers. Here is the back story.
Three species of African antelopes were in extreme danger of extinction in their own indigenous countries in Africa. Concerned American ranchers, at their own expense, offered to set aside grazing lands from their own property to try to save these species. They got breeding stock from American zoos, the last safe habitat for these rare animals, and hoped for the best. These ranchers just liked the look of a scimitar or African Giselle mingling with their herds of Texas longhorns.
How would you like a rack like mine?
Long story short, the animals thrived. In fact, some of the animals closest to extinction have come back from the brink in spectacular fashion. They've done so well the ranchers figured out a commercial use for these rare animals. Without these ranchers help the world may have lost some of the most beautiful animals on the planet left to extinction in their own home countries. For example, the scimitar oryx once inhabited the whole of North Africa and roamed its plains in vast herds, but was declared extinct in the wild in 2000.
So where is the controversy? Since the goal of conserving many endangered species from extinction has been a resounding success, why would an international animal rights organization be suing the pants off the ranchers doing the conserving?
Well it turns out the problem rests with the word conservation. Over the years the ranchers realized there was a commercial value to raising endangered exotic animals; sport hunting. Rich trophy hunters from all over the globe for generations made treks to the African Safari to bag one of these rare animals… until the supply ran out. Now they take their safaris and spend their money in Texas. The money they spend, up to $50,000 for a water buffalo, goes to the ranchers who raise these animals and helps pay for their upkeep and protection. Raising stock for sale is what ranchers do. Instead of raising a cow worth $1000, they are now raising animals worth tens of thousands of dollars. Sounds like kudos go to the ranchers and American capitalism is in good working order!
Would you pay $50,000 to save me?
Not so fast. Remember Priscilla Feral from the international animal rights organization? Her idea of conservation of a species does not include the harvesting of a single one of them. In spite of the fact that some of these animals would have gone extinct already were not for zoos and the intervention of Texas ranchers, she feels using them for sport is wrong; morally, ethically, and legally wrong. The ranchers limit the amount of permits they sell to hunters to 10% of the herds for each of their exotic species, so as to assure a continuing growth in the herd population. They use the money they make for a good cause, rescuing nearly extinct animals from the dustbin of history, but apparently using an animal as a trophy is simply unacceptable to some people regardless of the successful outcomes from their conservation efforts.
Only a hunter could love a face like hip’s.
So should American ranchers be allowed to raise exotic animals for profit to preserve a species which would probably go extinct without their intervention? The American government seems to think so. The US Fish and Wildlife Service, a branch of the Department of the Interior, states that “Hunting… provides an economic incentive… for ranchers to continue to breed these species." Further, they state that “…hunting…reduces the threat of the species’ extinction.”
Nevertheless, it would appear the people suing the ranchers would rather a species go extinct than to see them being used like the cattle they are. They expect the ranchers to discontinue the very programs which support the whole conservation effort rather than to permit the harvesting of a few animals for the good of the herds. The sad part is they have already met with a measure of success. After a federal judge rejected a last-minute appeal by ranchers for an injunction in April 2011, hunters in Texas will no longer be able to hunt three endangered species of antelopes without a federal permit.
Absent a financial reason for breeding these animals, ranchers will most certainly turn to other ways to earn their living. It is too bad that such an action will inevitably put these animals back on the road to extinction. These creatures have thrived in Texas, which has the largest population anywhere in the world of these three endangered antelopes. According to the Texas-based Exotic Wildlife Association, the scimitar-horned oryx’s numbers in a captive breeding program in Texas grew from 32 to more than 11,000 today. The dama gazelle, the rarest of these three, numbered only nine in 1979 but there are more than 800 today.
Meanwhile there were only two addax known to exist in Texas in 1971, but there are more than 5,000 of them today.
Those numbers scream conservation of the first order. Priscilla Feral’s “conservation” efforts are a cruel joke on our sensibilities. To suggest that the cows ranchers raised for hundreds of years are in some way suitable for slaughter while their prettier cousins aren’t is juvenile. To suggest that a zebra is something other than a horse with a fancy coat is beyond adult comprehension. To suggest our American buffalos are suitable for hunting but an African buffalo should be off limits is beyond the pale.
I’m just a horse like a Ferrari is just a car!
In this case a misdirected “do-gooder” is doing unimaginable harm by taking the conservation efforts of our American ranchers and making those ranchers subject to federal regulation. John Stossel is apoplectic.
A recent segment on 60 Minutes put a spotlight on an interesting philosophical battle going on between two groups of people supposedly working for the same cause, the conservation of endangered species. The battle is over exotic animals and the battleground is in Texas. On the one side we have 5000 cattle ranchers raising endangered and exotic species. This group, represented by Charly Seale, executive director of the Exotic Wildlife Association of Texas, has been successful at increasing some exotic herds to the point where they are no longer endangered. In the opposite corner, but on the same side of the street supposedly, is the "Friends of Animals", an international animal rights organization led by Priscilla Feral.
What the argument and seven-year legal battle is about is how these animals are being used by the ranchers. Here is the back story.
Three species of African antelopes were in extreme danger of extinction in their own indigenous countries in Africa. Concerned American ranchers, at their own expense, offered to set aside grazing lands from their own property to try to save these species. They got breeding stock from American zoos, the last safe habitat for these rare animals, and hoped for the best. These ranchers just liked the look of a scimitar or African Giselle mingling with their herds of Texas longhorns.
How would you like a rack like mine?
Long story short, the animals thrived. In fact, some of the animals closest to extinction have come back from the brink in spectacular fashion. They've done so well the ranchers figured out a commercial use for these rare animals. Without these ranchers help the world may have lost some of the most beautiful animals on the planet left to extinction in their own home countries. For example, the scimitar oryx once inhabited the whole of North Africa and roamed its plains in vast herds, but was declared extinct in the wild in 2000.
So where is the controversy? Since the goal of conserving many endangered species from extinction has been a resounding success, why would an international animal rights organization be suing the pants off the ranchers doing the conserving?
Well it turns out the problem rests with the word conservation. Over the years the ranchers realized there was a commercial value to raising endangered exotic animals; sport hunting. Rich trophy hunters from all over the globe for generations made treks to the African Safari to bag one of these rare animals… until the supply ran out. Now they take their safaris and spend their money in Texas. The money they spend, up to $50,000 for a water buffalo, goes to the ranchers who raise these animals and helps pay for their upkeep and protection. Raising stock for sale is what ranchers do. Instead of raising a cow worth $1000, they are now raising animals worth tens of thousands of dollars. Sounds like kudos go to the ranchers and American capitalism is in good working order!
Would you pay $50,000 to save me?
Not so fast. Remember Priscilla Feral from the international animal rights organization? Her idea of conservation of a species does not include the harvesting of a single one of them. In spite of the fact that some of these animals would have gone extinct already were not for zoos and the intervention of Texas ranchers, she feels using them for sport is wrong; morally, ethically, and legally wrong. The ranchers limit the amount of permits they sell to hunters to 10% of the herds for each of their exotic species, so as to assure a continuing growth in the herd population. They use the money they make for a good cause, rescuing nearly extinct animals from the dustbin of history, but apparently using an animal as a trophy is simply unacceptable to some people regardless of the successful outcomes from their conservation efforts.
Only a hunter could love a face like hip’s.
So should American ranchers be allowed to raise exotic animals for profit to preserve a species which would probably go extinct without their intervention? The American government seems to think so. The US Fish and Wildlife Service, a branch of the Department of the Interior, states that “Hunting… provides an economic incentive… for ranchers to continue to breed these species." Further, they state that “…hunting…reduces the threat of the species’ extinction.”
Nevertheless, it would appear the people suing the ranchers would rather a species go extinct than to see them being used like the cattle they are. They expect the ranchers to discontinue the very programs which support the whole conservation effort rather than to permit the harvesting of a few animals for the good of the herds. The sad part is they have already met with a measure of success. After a federal judge rejected a last-minute appeal by ranchers for an injunction in April 2011, hunters in Texas will no longer be able to hunt three endangered species of antelopes without a federal permit.
Absent a financial reason for breeding these animals, ranchers will most certainly turn to other ways to earn their living. It is too bad that such an action will inevitably put these animals back on the road to extinction. These creatures have thrived in Texas, which has the largest population anywhere in the world of these three endangered antelopes. According to the Texas-based Exotic Wildlife Association, the scimitar-horned oryx’s numbers in a captive breeding program in Texas grew from 32 to more than 11,000 today. The dama gazelle, the rarest of these three, numbered only nine in 1979 but there are more than 800 today.
Meanwhile there were only two addax known to exist in Texas in 1971, but there are more than 5,000 of them today.
Those numbers scream conservation of the first order. Priscilla Feral’s “conservation” efforts are a cruel joke on our sensibilities. To suggest that the cows ranchers raised for hundreds of years are in some way suitable for slaughter while their prettier cousins aren’t is juvenile. To suggest that a zebra is something other than a horse with a fancy coat is beyond adult comprehension. To suggest our American buffalos are suitable for hunting but an African buffalo should be off limits is beyond the pale.
I’m just a horse like a Ferrari is just a car!
In this case a misdirected “do-gooder” is doing unimaginable harm by taking the conservation efforts of our American ranchers and making those ranchers subject to federal regulation. John Stossel is apoplectic.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Serious People
Serious people always baffled me. These are the people who walk around with a frown, acting as if the entire world rested unsteadily on their shoulders. Dour is a word I always used to describe serious people; cynical with a serious bias to the negative side would be another, and grave is one of my personal favorites.
Serious people have always had a way of making me feel guilty for some reason. Perhaps it is because I never had a reason to feel very "serious" about anything. I don't mean I am frivolous or ditzy, or that I can't be hurt or feel fear. I just mean that as an eternal optimist I always look at the bright side of life, which automatically squeezes a great deal of the "serious" out.
Here is my question. What good is serious or how much good does it do? Does being "serious" about a problem mean you care more about the income of or outcome from a situation than someone with a more casual attitude would? Does taking your job seriously mean you are automatically better at it than someone with a nonchalant attitude? (Bosses sure seem to think so.) Is being "serious" about someone a good thing? Can you be happy without being serious? Can you be successful or trusted without having a "serious bone" in your body?
Serious is associated with a sign of maturity. Nobody expects kids to be serious. Most people around the world seem to think that a person’s chronological age makes all the difference and as soon as we become adults by law we should become serious about life. It didn't work that way for me. I refused to “grow” up or develop a serious side.
I could never see very far into the future and therefore never saw any reason not to have fun and enjoy whatever I was doing in the present. Some people say "grow a frown", get some worry lines going on and begin to act your age. Having fun and playing are inconsistent with getting serious about life and being responsible. Wipe that smile off your face!
I never felt like I was shouldering more than I could carry and therefore I never felt the weight of the world pressing down on me. I don't mean to suggest I never carried any weight; I ran businesses and had many employees. I just carried the weight with a good attitude so the weight was never hard to bear. I never ran into a problem which couldn’t be better solved with a smile than a frown. I never ran into a situation where a more serious attitude would have improved or affected the outcome one way or another.
So I traded in the worry lines I earned in life for laugh lines and learned to fake being serious, as befitted my station in life. But inside I never grew a serious bone. As I grew older I accumulated some serious baggage but I kept it in the trunk. Sh*t happens but I never saw any reason to allow the bitter ugly in life to ruin my upbeat disposition.
Serious has a place in life, no doubt. It reinforces lessons we need to learn. We should take learning seriously. We should take love and family seriously. But to become a serious person would be entirely too serious a thing for me to do.
Author's note: I wrote this blog in part to encourage people to lighten up a little. I also wrote this blog because many people who have read my blogs have asked how to attract more traffic to their sites. This blog is an example of SEO, otherwise known as search engine optimization.
As you can clearly see, I sprinkled the word serious all over this blog. In no time at all this blog will show up on the front page, if not in the number one position, for the search word “serious”. (At least I think it will. :) To increase your page rank pick a word that relates to what you are trying to sell or say and paste it all over your blog or website. Do this in an intelligent manner, not in nonsense sentences, and the search engines will love you.
At least, that is the theory. Keep an eye on "serious" over the next few weeks to see my results.
PS: And please spread this blog around! :):)
Serious people have always had a way of making me feel guilty for some reason. Perhaps it is because I never had a reason to feel very "serious" about anything. I don't mean I am frivolous or ditzy, or that I can't be hurt or feel fear. I just mean that as an eternal optimist I always look at the bright side of life, which automatically squeezes a great deal of the "serious" out.
Here is my question. What good is serious or how much good does it do? Does being "serious" about a problem mean you care more about the income of or outcome from a situation than someone with a more casual attitude would? Does taking your job seriously mean you are automatically better at it than someone with a nonchalant attitude? (Bosses sure seem to think so.) Is being "serious" about someone a good thing? Can you be happy without being serious? Can you be successful or trusted without having a "serious bone" in your body?
Serious is associated with a sign of maturity. Nobody expects kids to be serious. Most people around the world seem to think that a person’s chronological age makes all the difference and as soon as we become adults by law we should become serious about life. It didn't work that way for me. I refused to “grow” up or develop a serious side.
I could never see very far into the future and therefore never saw any reason not to have fun and enjoy whatever I was doing in the present. Some people say "grow a frown", get some worry lines going on and begin to act your age. Having fun and playing are inconsistent with getting serious about life and being responsible. Wipe that smile off your face!
I never felt like I was shouldering more than I could carry and therefore I never felt the weight of the world pressing down on me. I don't mean to suggest I never carried any weight; I ran businesses and had many employees. I just carried the weight with a good attitude so the weight was never hard to bear. I never ran into a problem which couldn’t be better solved with a smile than a frown. I never ran into a situation where a more serious attitude would have improved or affected the outcome one way or another.
So I traded in the worry lines I earned in life for laugh lines and learned to fake being serious, as befitted my station in life. But inside I never grew a serious bone. As I grew older I accumulated some serious baggage but I kept it in the trunk. Sh*t happens but I never saw any reason to allow the bitter ugly in life to ruin my upbeat disposition.
Serious has a place in life, no doubt. It reinforces lessons we need to learn. We should take learning seriously. We should take love and family seriously. But to become a serious person would be entirely too serious a thing for me to do.
Author's note: I wrote this blog in part to encourage people to lighten up a little. I also wrote this blog because many people who have read my blogs have asked how to attract more traffic to their sites. This blog is an example of SEO, otherwise known as search engine optimization.
As you can clearly see, I sprinkled the word serious all over this blog. In no time at all this blog will show up on the front page, if not in the number one position, for the search word “serious”. (At least I think it will. :) To increase your page rank pick a word that relates to what you are trying to sell or say and paste it all over your blog or website. Do this in an intelligent manner, not in nonsense sentences, and the search engines will love you.
At least, that is the theory. Keep an eye on "serious" over the next few weeks to see my results.
PS: And please spread this blog around! :):)
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
!! Breaking News !!
Perhaps the most hackneyed expression in the news is “breaking news”.
In years past when I saw the bright red banner "Breaking News" on the screen I would stop what I was doing and pay attention. After all, what was soon to follow was sure to be a real ground trembler, or a tsunami, or any cataclysmic event worthy of my immediate and complete attention, right?
Over the last decade "breaking news" standards have slipped to say the least. Celebrity news like, for example, “Britney blows fresh breath” make instant headlines, but quite frankly I could care less. Disaster news like wildfires rampaging somewhere or 50 car pile ups in a fog somewhere put me to sleep.
It is not that I could care less; it is that I care too much.
The truth is I am shell shocked by the onslaught of "bad" news breaking over me continuously. I know I am suffering from some new, as yet unpublished form of distress syndrome brought about by the continuous bombarding of my senses with heartbreaking news.
By now I am more than ready to hear some "breaking news" that isn’t heartbreaking. My guess is that millions of others are also. So how about a new e-zine called “Good News“? Does anybody want to subscribe?
Didn't think so. (The sad truth is “good news” just doesn’t sell well.)
In years past when I saw the bright red banner "Breaking News" on the screen I would stop what I was doing and pay attention. After all, what was soon to follow was sure to be a real ground trembler, or a tsunami, or any cataclysmic event worthy of my immediate and complete attention, right?
Over the last decade "breaking news" standards have slipped to say the least. Celebrity news like, for example, “Britney blows fresh breath” make instant headlines, but quite frankly I could care less. Disaster news like wildfires rampaging somewhere or 50 car pile ups in a fog somewhere put me to sleep.
It is not that I could care less; it is that I care too much.
The truth is I am shell shocked by the onslaught of "bad" news breaking over me continuously. I know I am suffering from some new, as yet unpublished form of distress syndrome brought about by the continuous bombarding of my senses with heartbreaking news.
By now I am more than ready to hear some "breaking news" that isn’t heartbreaking. My guess is that millions of others are also. So how about a new e-zine called “Good News“? Does anybody want to subscribe?
Didn't think so. (The sad truth is “good news” just doesn’t sell well.)
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Cybercops, The New Breed
Have you heard about the latest police"initiative"?
Apparently there are not enough criminals falling into court on their own to keep the system happy. The punishment sector of society requires ever more public offenders to provide a base for the growth in the share of our national budget dedicated to the penal systems in all 50 states. When the supply of ready offenders falls short, or, in other words, when crime rates fall, state legislators simply make more laws making more things illegal to fill the gap.
Take California's penal system for example. It is California's largest single budget item, larger even than their gigantic health and welfare department and far larger than their entire educational or human services system. The funny thing about this major budget item is it is sacrosanct and gets the full support and backing of both the public and organized crime. When Gov. Schwarzenegger tried to scale the system back to something that made sense given today's tight budget constraints he got slapped down hard. It seems everybody is happy with the numbers of cops and robbers in the system today. It’s just that no one wants to pay for them.
So the legislatures around the country pony up to support an obese bureaucracy dedicated to putting more and more people in jail. We could spend our money trying to correct people's behavior, or by trying to eliminate the reason people find themselves caught up in the system in the first place. NO WAY! In this country we prefer to cage each other like animals rather than to rehabilitate our social misfits.
Since nothing major has occurred in our country in the last decade to keep people frightened and willing to pay up for more security, police departments are under pressure to justify their bloated budgets. They are rising to the challenge in a unique and unusual way. Police departments are creating special task forces who move into the digital world as cyber spies and digital sport hunters. These specialized hunters are setting traps all over the web. However their main focus is in their favorite area of crime investigation, the sexual realm since sex crimes make the best headlines.
What they now do is they set up phony links offering lurid tag lines. These come ons are designed to seduce the unsuspecting public into incriminating themselves by following these phony links. For example, they may attempt to lure a child sexual predator into giving himself away by following a suggestive thread into a private chat room. The next morning the proud owner of that IP address gets a 6 AM cyber SWAT, military style invasion guaranteed to put the rest of his life in a tailspin.
Mind you, this person may have been merely curious, may have been doing research, or may have had dozens of other reasons to follow a lurid link. Heck the person may have even clicked on the link by mistake! This person may have had no history of child sexual abuse throughout his entire life and is now about to be convicted by the press and in the court of public opinion as a child molester. I do not know how anyone could ever expect to recover from public exposure to charges like this. Regardless of guilt or innocence anyone accused of a crime of this nature is ruined for life.
So is this a good idea America? Should we send our excessive police forces forging out into the cyberspace world to create a whole new class of criminal? Should we give up any notion of internet privacy in favor of a dubious good? Is setting traps for Internet users even a morally good, let alone the best, way to manage our resources? Are we now capable of determining when thought crimes are being committed, and should we start putting people in jail for what they may be thinking whether or not they have even done anything wrong? Are we ready to start putting people in jail for what they have looked at online?
We’d better get ready to build a whole bunch more jails since anybody with an iPod or cell phone is a potential criminal in a heartbeat.
Is this America's concept of freedom going forward?
Apparently there are not enough criminals falling into court on their own to keep the system happy. The punishment sector of society requires ever more public offenders to provide a base for the growth in the share of our national budget dedicated to the penal systems in all 50 states. When the supply of ready offenders falls short, or, in other words, when crime rates fall, state legislators simply make more laws making more things illegal to fill the gap.
Take California's penal system for example. It is California's largest single budget item, larger even than their gigantic health and welfare department and far larger than their entire educational or human services system. The funny thing about this major budget item is it is sacrosanct and gets the full support and backing of both the public and organized crime. When Gov. Schwarzenegger tried to scale the system back to something that made sense given today's tight budget constraints he got slapped down hard. It seems everybody is happy with the numbers of cops and robbers in the system today. It’s just that no one wants to pay for them.
So the legislatures around the country pony up to support an obese bureaucracy dedicated to putting more and more people in jail. We could spend our money trying to correct people's behavior, or by trying to eliminate the reason people find themselves caught up in the system in the first place. NO WAY! In this country we prefer to cage each other like animals rather than to rehabilitate our social misfits.
Since nothing major has occurred in our country in the last decade to keep people frightened and willing to pay up for more security, police departments are under pressure to justify their bloated budgets. They are rising to the challenge in a unique and unusual way. Police departments are creating special task forces who move into the digital world as cyber spies and digital sport hunters. These specialized hunters are setting traps all over the web. However their main focus is in their favorite area of crime investigation, the sexual realm since sex crimes make the best headlines.
What they now do is they set up phony links offering lurid tag lines. These come ons are designed to seduce the unsuspecting public into incriminating themselves by following these phony links. For example, they may attempt to lure a child sexual predator into giving himself away by following a suggestive thread into a private chat room. The next morning the proud owner of that IP address gets a 6 AM cyber SWAT, military style invasion guaranteed to put the rest of his life in a tailspin.
Mind you, this person may have been merely curious, may have been doing research, or may have had dozens of other reasons to follow a lurid link. Heck the person may have even clicked on the link by mistake! This person may have had no history of child sexual abuse throughout his entire life and is now about to be convicted by the press and in the court of public opinion as a child molester. I do not know how anyone could ever expect to recover from public exposure to charges like this. Regardless of guilt or innocence anyone accused of a crime of this nature is ruined for life.
So is this a good idea America? Should we send our excessive police forces forging out into the cyberspace world to create a whole new class of criminal? Should we give up any notion of internet privacy in favor of a dubious good? Is setting traps for Internet users even a morally good, let alone the best, way to manage our resources? Are we now capable of determining when thought crimes are being committed, and should we start putting people in jail for what they may be thinking whether or not they have even done anything wrong? Are we ready to start putting people in jail for what they have looked at online?
We’d better get ready to build a whole bunch more jails since anybody with an iPod or cell phone is a potential criminal in a heartbeat.
Is this America's concept of freedom going forward?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)