Inside_Passage’s blog

Topic of the Hour: Spotlight on Glenn Beck and NBC

The two names speak for themselves, so I'm going to avoid going into much detail about them. Instead, I'm going to cap a strange little segment done by Beck on the subject of NBC, communism, and secret conspiracies hidden within the Rockefeller Center. For someone who used to present as an intelligent individual, he's started taking on a narcissistic cast that he never seemed to have before. That's unfortunate.

Topic of the Hour: Mixing "Open-Carry" and Protests

In the slew of news about the health care debate and related fun & games that has been parading through the news, came one particular bit that just blew my mind - a protestor by name of William Kostric decided to make himself heard, and did his speaking through a sign quoting Thomas Jefferson and a gun in his holster. What he wanted to say, according to the man himself in an interview with Chris Matthews, isn't quite what was to be expected. Not about the health care, or more surprisingly, not about the right to bear arms, which is something one might associated with an issue a protestor might have with the current president of the USA. Instead, he spoke about bipartisan tyranny, and the increasing loss of rights among voters to both sides of the leadership. More intriguingly, he made a good presentation for it, not at all menacing, and Matthews resultingly came off as a bit of a blowhard, losing good points in what appeared to be repeated attempts to 'zing' the Kostric with "hardball" points.

Sadly, despite some agreement I might have with some of his principles, Kostric still fails at exercise of good sense.

I won't debate his right to carry. I'm a strong supporter of the second amendment and I consider it as much one of our core rights as Americans as the freedom of speech. With that right to bear arms comes some responsibilities, set down in open-carry, concealed-carry and all manner of other laws. The average  gun owner in the USA, despite the failures of the firearms lobby, has long shown a strong sense of responsibility by its representative population, to my eye.

I won't debate his ability to exercise his open-carry rights under law even where there's a president in attendance. The president deserves no special privileges beyond every other citizen of the USA in this respect. New Hampshire allows that under law. So be it.

His sign is unquestionably to the point:

"It's Time to Water the Tree of Liberty!"

This is an abbreviated version of Thomas Jefferson's quote:

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

In light of Kostric's belief that government on all sides has fallen into a state of tyranny, that sign can't be construed as anything other than a call to arms. It's questionable as to whether it's an actual threat, but protestors carrying signs of that nature is nothing new on either side of the fence, no matter what either ideology will insist is the truth a to the purity of its membership.

To punctuate his call to arms, he carries a weapon. Others have followed his example, and I can only see this as a dangerous trend, a trend that will not benefit the "patriot" in any way. For every high minded truly righteous patriot who presents himself as Kostric seems to, there are a dozen who are completely light-blinded by their own ideologies who have every bit the exact same rights Kostric and the rest of us do. What happens when they start brandishing their weapons? What happens when someone finally takes the first shot? Will it be a "better-case" scenario like this? Or will it dissolve into an open firefight between people trying to "defend" themselves? The utter stupidity and senselessness of this gesture of 'defiance' pisses away the meaning and robs it of its power.

The right to bear arms comes with responsibility, and while it may be a right, that doesn't make using it stupidly right.

Topic of the Hour: Nancy Pelosi

Every time I see something written by her, or hear something spoken by her, I am reminded of Donald Rumsfeld in a strange sort of way, and the link finally hit home with the recent controversy over town halls, and her related whining. They are both willing to use "patriotism" as a weapon against the citizens of their own country to advance their own agendas. I see this as cowardice in the extreme, the worst kind of verbal attack those who lead us can possibly use. Rumsfeld was willing to call those of us who disagree the modern-day equivalent of Nazi appeasers, Pelosi simply settles for un-American.

On to the quote in question - You can read the whole text here on a12iggymom's blog, but in particular the controversy involves this piece of the quote:

These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades.

 
If you take that sentence purely in it's own context, it's not so bad. After all, it IS blatantly un-American to actively attempt to silence opposing views. The problem here is that she's painting everyone involved as doing that - it's garbage, and a particularly disgusting tactic to boot. The truth is that on this subject passions ride very high. People want to be heard, expect that as citizens of the United States, where speech is not only a right but a point of pride, that they will be heard, and will shout to do it if they have to. Town halls are their opportunity to do so. It's bad behaviour, but ultimately that's all it is. To call it anything else is an insult. To call it un-American is outrageous.

I won't deny that some of those people are simply shouting down anyone with an opposing view, that there are lies told, misconceptions spread, and outright dishonesty all about. That's politics, and it's on both sides of the fence. We as a country victims of our own behavior. Pelosi is not a victim here, nor is the Democratic party, nor their health care plan(s). Even the rest of the White House acknowledges it, though to their failing, they chose to use a spokesperson to do it rather than the head honcho himself. How sad that he doesn't feel the need to invoke the voice of presidential authority where it matters the most, against the poor behaviour of his own party, rather than some racial PR fiasco.

Topic of the Hour: Defying Black and White Worldview

In a previous blog, I wrote about "Circularism", an imaginary term I use to describe people of any ideology who have a knee-jerk reaction to criticism of their own ideology, demanding that any perceived attack on it be matched with an equal attack on someone of their opposition ideology. Read the "Rage & Violence" article if you're interested, but the reference is really just to get the ball rolling and explain where I'm going with this.

The people, "Circularists" seem to have a narrow perception of the world, seeing it in black and white, believing that someone who disagrees with them is by default not just a friend of their opposition ideology, but a member of said ideology. To a Circularist-Conservative, someone who attacks a Conservative ideal is clearly a Liberal. And vice versa for the other half. The same for any other party or ideology, unto infinity.

But the fact is that the world simply does not work that way.

The easy big-name example of this is Sarah Palin. Despite being a Republican with conservative values, she has very outspoken conservative opposition. It's been described as partisan elitism, but I think that oversimplifies the matter. The reality is that whatever lack of willigness she has to deal with the fallout of her actions, Palin has often taken stands on issues that make her unpopular with parts of her own party. It's an issue that goes into party politics, and is a hard reminder that just because you're in the same party with someone else, doesn't mean you're on the same page with them. Any number of conservative bloggers, including some of our own on Vox, will be quick to tell you what a horrible, terrible, no good, very bad, unethical person Sarah Palin is.... not because they're secretly liberals or party elitists but because they have gripes with her that go way back. It's the nature of the beast.

Which brings us to the other side of the equation, an article I came across in today's news. Here we have a group called CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington), a watchdog group that got started back in 2003. CREW is a liberal organization that uses litigation and other tactics to go after elected politicians who are running their own (unethical) agenda, rather than doing the job they were elected for. Sounds like a good concept.

So, apparently when Obama made some campaign promises regarding transparency-with-a-Capital-T, CREW took him at his word, and was probably thinking they were done with Bush's nonsense. So, when all of this hullabaloo starts up over The Health Care Program (omg), they want the visitor logs for the white house. After all, everyone wants to know who's influencing policy-making, especially when Pelosi's already telling us they've got the necessary votes. What's that? Denied. Well, wait guys. You can have -some- but not all of it. Just some names, of course. Nothing like times, duration or anything that might suggest what their purpose was. Limited, see. Transparent, but not really.

Surprisingly, despite the gungho approach to Transparency and being yet another described liberal, Obama and his administration lean in Bush's direction when it comes to the actual practice. Wait, that's liberal vs. liberal, and a liberal behaving like a conservative? Another black and white worldview shatters. Egads!

That's the way it -should- be, to my eye. Sharing an ideology, a party, or anything else doesn't mean you'll always agree with the person you share it with.

~ Fin ~

Topic of the Hour: UK Law

Today's title is inspired by an old Simon & Garfunkel song, "The Sound of Silence". While I enjoy the song itself, there are two lines from it that have stuck in my mind over the years:

People talking without speaking,
People hearing without listening,

The song's message goes a bit deeper, but those two lines could be aptly used to describe much of our country today. Speaking loudly and often to be heard, but without a meaningful message. Hearing what others say without understanding it and arguing without really disagreeing. Two words (to listen and to hear, to speak and to talk) that almost mean the same thing, but are fundamentally different by the ideas they convey...

Anyway, this odd set of thoughts is stirred by an eye-catching article I found today. I'll admit that like many Americans, I'm guilty of tending to stick to US News, or US-relevant news, with the occasional exception such as events like those in Yugoslavia, Sudan, or wherever. Every now and again, I'll try and break out of that habit just for good form. Sorry, Yoda.

Back to the subject - over in the UK, a group called the Independent Safeguarding Authority, a nondepartmental public body (public entity, but appears to answer to the Parliament) is passing a regulation called the "Vetting and Barring Scheme" that requires any adult entering a school or placed of care for vulnerable adults to prove first that they are not a -known- threat. By known threat, this refers to a criminal background check, as ISA has access to relevant public records. Think of that what you will, but it's not where I'm going with this particular article, since I'm talking about the UK and not the USA. Different countries, different attitudes.

This background check comes with a 64 pound fee (which is just over $100 Amero). The first boycott is coming from a natural source - authors who volunteer their time to read to children. Unsurprisingly, they find it rather insulting that they have to prove they're not a criminal when being the public figures they are, people know everything about them whether the author wants it or not.

To my eye, they (the authors -and- the ISA) are missing the point. This is an attempt at protecting while failing to actually shield the children. After all, it only protects the children from -known- threats, those who are actually in the government database for crimes committed. As far as everyone else goes. Note that I'm not talking about the teachers or workers here - the UK's putting in better laws for screening that. I'm talking about the fact that there shouldn't BE any adults in a school or institutionalized care who don't work there. The -only- exception to that is adults who are there in a supervised capacity. Heavy emphasis on supervised. I don't mean following them around with a gun and a menacing glare, but simple basic supervision by a couple of adults or teachers. The parent or the volunteer comes and does what they are there to do, and they leave. That is all.

It's true that you cannot protect children from everything, and it's especially true that the police cannot protect us from everything, no matter how great their database is. Instead of relying on them for that kind of protection, it seems to me they'd be better served relying on a system that is meant to fully shield, rather than partially.

~ Fin ~

QoTD: In honor of Bastille Day, we'd like to know: What's your favorite thing to come out of France? 

The Statue of Liberty! So often caught up in the politics of who we hate at the moment, who did what to whom in the past or who didn't do what for whom, we forget one of the greatest gifts we ever received from another nation and one of the best symbols of what our country stood for. A gift from the people of France, who sculpted the original, and then helped us build the one that stands in New York Harbor now.

Topic of the Hour: Internet Politics

Yeah, I'm feeling kinda motivated to blog today. Two whole blogs in one day! (wow, better watch out a12ziggy!). You see, something's been bugging me.

A little more insight into the origins of Inside. I was introduced to www.vox.com in a really random and roundabout way... another forum. One of that forum's more outspoken critics of Palin, someone from Wasilla (and there are certainly a few), mentioned a minor news story breaking about the newly chosen VP candidate for McCain and a previous encroachment on a blogger's First Amendment rights. Kinda.

As NYTimes lore would have it, a message from Palin's assistant to the Vox blogger in question:

“You should be ashamed!” Ivy Frye, the assistant, told her. “Stop blogging. Stop blogging right now!”

Intriguing. By implication of this article, Palin sicced her watchdog on the poor blogger, who has every right to use her freedom of speech. What's more, with a little investigation, there's one whole article in that month's blog. Outrageous!

Inside checks out the blog, and while the poor blogger seems outspoken, that's no crime. What is this garbage? Why should she be ashamed? At this point, Inside wonders if maybe this isn't a put on job. After all, NYTimes never mentioned it again, and for such an outstanding breach of said blogger's rights, it was only mentioned after Palin was announced for VP that this was mentioned. Not even in the blog for the month in question. Hmmm. Still, that's just speculation. Don't be a jerk, Inside.

Fast forwarding a bit, I start my own blog on here because blogging is nifty. Cool beans. Fast forward to now, where I'm hanging out on my computer in the wee hours, random thoughts spinning through my head, and the one that pops up is, "What was that blogger supposed to be ashamed of?" as I scanned a recent article. Time to track down the original article. Find out what the dish is, if there is any.

I found this piece, titled "Stop blogging! Stop blogging right now!" More new information - It was assumed that Palin gave Frye the number by the blogger, but there's no actual evidence of that and the blogger says as much. Hmmmmmmmm. Better yet, there's a prompt that led to the conversation... a discussion in the comments section of the Anchorage Daily News between Frye and the blogger. And man, it only makes Frye look bad, because gosh what kind of unpatriotic jerk would tell someone to stop exercising their freedom of speech. But.... thinking further... what's there to be ashamed of? Really? Even a raving nutbag unamerican has a method to their madness - and if they don't they'd be all over every other nutcase like the OTHER bloggers from Wasilla. But there's nothing. Madness!

So, I try tracking it down to the original source. Charming, the ADN charges a fee to read archived articles, which means no tracking the original. However, surprisingly, I am able to find some references to our Vox-blogger in the comments of other articles....! But wow, very unflattering, with only a touch of support and more of the same. Maybe they're just overstating the case, like a usual Circularist? Could be, but then I remember this charming quote

"Sarah whore that rides the beast Palin is a slimball, certainly corrupt and has plenty to hide." Quoting the rest of the comment is pointless, as it's more of the rambling vitriol, but just for the curious, a link.

Suddenly, it all makes sense. Be ashamed, indeed.

~ Fin ~

Topic of the Hour: Politics on the Internet

For clarification, I'm going to explain two terms used in the title of this article, Tweeners and Circularism. Neither, per my definition, are part of the English language and probably never will be, as they were made up by Supersparky and myself respectively.

Not to be confused with a process used in making animation or child between 12 or other variant (about 20 years too old for that, ha), a Tweener is someone whose politics run somewhere off on their own tangent on the field of politics. While it's somewhere midstream between liberal and conservative, I don't think I can rightly call myself a Moderate, as some of my views are conciliatory while others are no such thing. Supersparky suggested Tweener, and assuming he wasn't just having fun at my expense, it works. There's probably a more appropriate term.... uh, such as Moderate, but hey, w/e!

As for Circularists, I toyed with the possibility of calling them Circulists, but the term is taken for an art technique, so I adjusted it a tad for my needs. A Circulist is a denizen of the internet who resorts to a very specific type of attack when confronted with criticism of an issue or a candidate of their ideology/party-of-choice. This attack is guilt-by-association in nature, and brands the critics as a member of the opposition by suggesting they are deliberately and dishonestly ignoring candidates of an opposing ideology/party who are guilty of the same thing, in completely irrelevant fashion, and likely in complete ignorance of some criticism you did indeed levy against that opposing party.. An example:

Subject: Bush decides Gitmo policy is good in concept and his idea of execution some eight years back.
Tweener: Man, I can't believe that jerk is doing something that fundamentally violates human rights.
Conservative Circularist: Typical unamerican [expletive], you let Obama off the hook for the same thing.

Subject: Obama decides Gitmo policy is good in concept, if not execution.
Tweener: Man, I can't believe that jerk is doing something that fundamentally violates human rights.
Liberal Circularist: Typical fascist neocon [expletive], you let Bush off the hook for doing the same thing.

In typical thickheaded fashion, the most stalwart examples of Circularist will not ever be convinced that you are not siding with the enemy and are not an an example of an unpatriotic/racist/terrorist-loving/fascist exemplifying the opposing ideology. These idiots really need to realize that the American political spectrum doesn't neatly fall into Democrat and Republican, conservative and liberal, or any other ridiculously black-and-white way they have of looking at the world. They need to realize that disagreeing with someone doesn't make them the enemy, that not following in lockstep with their belief system doesn't make someone evil. Heck, it's not even conservative and liberal and tweener. The world doesn't work like that, you narcissists.

What some wise, and probably dead person said: The enemy of your enemy is not your friend.

~ Fin ~

Topic of the Hour: Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act

Note: Included on the sidebar are relevant links to the text of this Act.

Rather vague title, I know. So, to clarify: While browsing MSN, I came across an interesting article on Sarah Palin's complaints regarding the AEBEA. Putting aside her inflated sense of victimization (it's politics, my sympathies waver between limited and nonexistant) for now, here's what comes up.

Those following the remaining news regarding her trials and tribulations are aware that she's had an number (around 17, according to the article) of complaints filed against her under the AEBEA, the majority of which have been either {dismissed or resolved in her favor}. Of the successfully filed complaints, one includes the most public incident regarding the firing (note: earlier archived article), wherein it determined that she had committed an ethical violation since she personally benefitted... while acknowledging that said "violation" was entirely within her rights as governor and lawful, since the office of Monegan serves at the governor's will. Another involves questionable travel expenses for her children, which are covered, but Palin agreed to reimburse the state for some reason. Goodness of her heart? Showboating? No idea. Two are still pending.

Three are outright ridiculous:
1> Monegan attempting to use the AEBEA to "clear his name".
2> Palin's "wardrobe" dysfunction.
3> Hiring interference allegation by someone who apparently was so sure of their case that they tried to hide behind a pseudonym and left the case to be dismissed after not offering their real name.

The fact that so many complaints without merit have been dismissed speaks volumes.  Not about Sarah Palin, but about the fact that the AEBEA can be used unethically to attack a person in office, as many times as the filer likes...

Why is this the case? Note the complainants in the above link when I cite the following from the AEBEA:

Sec. 39.52.230.  Reporting of potential violations.

A person may report to a public officer's designated supervisor, under oath and in writing, a potential violation of AS 39.52.110 - 39.52.190 by the public officer. The supervisor shall provide a copy of the report to the officer who is the subject of the report and to the attorney general, and shall review the report to determine whether a violation may exist. The supervisor shall act in accordance with AS 39.52.210 or 39.52.220 if the supervisor determines that the matter may result in a violation of AS 39.52.110 - 39.52.190.

In other words, anyone can file a complaint as long as they're willing to submit it in writing and under oath. Yet there doesn't appear to be any accountability beyond that. Frivolous complaints aren't the same thing as perjury after all - a person may believe, due to ignorance of the AEBEA zealotry, or other reasons, that their submitted complaint is entirely warranted. Per what is written, their motives don't matter, whether they're doing it frivolously and wasting everyone's time or not. This can be used against not just Sarah Palin, but any governor or member of the executive branch elected in Alaska. A debunking posted by another Voxer indicates that the cost to the state is nowhere near Palin's projected $2M, really being closer to $236K, but that's still $236K of wasted taxpayer dollars. I am equally unimpressed by someone's ability to file a complaint against themselves, and have it resolved within their sphere.. What the $#*(, Palin?

Anyway, back to the primary point - that there is no accountability to keep these complaints in check. While I'm all for the people (myself being one of them) being able to hold their elected officials to account, there must be accountability here too. Since there seems to be no way to achieve that, it seems to me that complaints should only be able to be filed by those who are themselves accountable to the AEBEA. Seems to me that it'll cut the nonsense if the persons filing the complaint have to answer to the voters when the time comes.

~ Fin ~

Topic of the Hour: Graphene

Been awhile, but hey, found something new of interest to write about. Isn't it amazing what science comes up with these days? With techno-guns that do every possible thing a soldier could need on the field, and invisibility cloaks that sound like they came straight out of a "Harry Potter" book, it sometimes seems that the imagination's the only limit to what we can achieve in the sciences.

So, what's graphene? Sadly, science was never my strong point, so I'm limited to what this article and Graphene: Wikipedia tell me about it. In fact, I'll leave it to the reader to discover exactly how it works. My interest is in the properties that graphene is claimed to have.

Harder than diamond, atomic-level thinness. The Wiki article describes it as being like atomic chicken wire. Add in an ability to conduct electricity at 100x normal speeds and a flexibility you will never find in diamonds and you have something with obvious potential in the computer industry.

Sadly, the only mentioned application by the Pentagon and Department of Defense (DARPA) seems to be the computer industry. Looking at this from the nerd-perspective, I'm thinking body armor. In fantasy, you'll find endless mention of fantastic metals that can be woven into mesh, typicaly "mithril" or "admantine" type substances, considered very powerful because they don't hinder the movements of the wearer, yet offer amazing defense against blunt and piercing weapons.

Imagine a bodysuit with a thin coating as strong as diamond, with an under-layer made to absorb electricity, to remove an obvious vulnerability to tasers. Sounds like a replacement for Kevlar! That's making some big assumptions of course. This might be a prohibitively expensive process, or subject to some limitations that make that impossible. Still, it's fun to think on, no? Heck, you could turn that application elsewhere....

• Electrical pylons
• Support structures
• Building material on defense structures

... and those just scratch the surface. I'm talking about defensive applications of course; we already have the world's most powerful military or the next best thing to it.

I can't seem to find the quote source, but there's a science-fiction (Asimove or Heinlein) quote that sums it up aptly.

"The Future is Now"

~fin~