tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-42025077937053830292024-03-05T20:19:21.763-08:00The home of a Very Grumpy BunnyThis blog normally orients towards technology matters, chewing out various news sites and their readers, but will also include the interests of one Very Grumpy Bunny.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08951185953504736035noreply@blogger.comBlogger369125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4202507793705383029.post-88977268045163657512018-03-24T02:46:00.001-07:002018-03-24T02:46:06.447-07:00Signing the Omnibus; Playing the long game.Yesterday was March 23rd 2018. <div>
<br /></div>
<div>
For many conservatives, libertarians, or just those who are fiscally inclined, it was a day of tragedy as President of the United States Donald J. Trump signed an Omnibus spending bill. The Omnibus; apparently so named for it's inclusion of not just multiple smaller expenditure and fiscal request bills but also bills that had little to do with the budgetary matters; was described as a Christmas Gift for Liberals and Democrats. The entirety of the Bill's passage was a near repeat of the failing <i>Affordable Care Act</i>, with a ludicrously short period of time between the bill's introduction and it's vote on the House and Senate floors. The bill contained boondoggles such as a tunnel favored by Chuck Schumer; as well as continued federal funding of Planned Parenthood's Eugenics program against African Americans. <div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In short; the Omnibus was little more than a Democrat's wet dream of spending proposals that flew in direct opposition to everything GOP candidates ran on in 2016. It was ramrodded through Congress by the GOP Establishment Swamp working hand in hand with Democrats to betray the American Voter.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It was also...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><i>A Trap.</i></b></div>
<div>
<b><i><br /></i></b></div>
<div>
Just a few days before the Omnibus was set into motion there was a fundraiser held by the National Republican Congressional Committee for the 2018 elections. President Donald J. Trump spoke at that fundraiser and explicitly told attendees what conservative's have been saying for years. The Republicans needed to move further to the right-wing on their policies; because the Democrat's were continuously moving further left. The Republican strategy of fielding <i>"Middle Of the Road" </i>candidates has not been, and will never be, a winning strategy. There has to be a visible ideological difference between candidates. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Looking over history the most odd aspect of the Presidency of Donald J. Trump is the Republican Party itself. Traditionally once a President has been elected; that President becomes the <i>Defacto Leader</i> of that party. Throughout all of my life I've witnessed Obama, Clinton, both Bushes, and Reagan be the center of their political party. Not so with President Donald J. Trump. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan have exhibited behavior that indicates they believe they are in charge of the Republican Party; not the President. This came to a point in a recent election when a <a href="https://bigleaguepolitics.com/breaking-paul-ryans-pac-elected-democrat-conor-lamb/">Political Action Party attached to Paul Ryan</a> crossed Party Lines and actively campaigned against a GOP Contender aligned with President Donald J. Trump. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So it was without any surprise that the GOP Establishment Swamp quickly came up with a plan to get back at President Donald J. Trump for telling them to get out of the middle of the road. The plan was simple in it's implementation. The GOP Establishment Swamp would work with Democrat's to craft a budget bill stuffed with all the pork the Democrat's wanted; none of the funding that US Citizens voted for in 2016; and carrying numerous amendment riders that flew in direct violation of the ideologies already litigated upon and decided against in the 2016 elections. The Omnibus Bill would also be given an aggressively short time between introduction and voting to ensure that no members of Congress would be able to adequately examine or debate on the bill. To make the bill plausible though; it would also substantially fund the US Military. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The GOP Establishment Swamp knew for a fact, in their own minds, that President Trump would never sign such a bill. President Trump would never sign a bill that ran contrary to everything that Candidate Trump had campaigned on. There were no conditions in which President Trump would risk the ire of his voting base. There were no circumstances in which the bill would not be vetoed. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Thus; the trap was set.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As soon as President Trump vetoed the bill; which he would; the GOP Establishment Swamp would immediately use the Veto as Proof that President Trump was not willing to sign <i style="font-weight: bold;">ANY</i> bipartisan legislation; and thus that President Trump was <i style="font-weight: bold;">LYING</i> about making a deal on <i>DACA</i> or <i>Self Defense Regulations</i>. Furthermore; the GOP Establishment Swamp would then also be positioned to claim that President Trump was lying about supporting the Military.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Except... that didn't happen.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
President Trump called the GOP Establishment Swamp's bluff.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><i>Why Call The Bluff? National Security?</i></b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What the GOP Establishment Swamp hadn't counted on was two factors. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The first factor was the replacement of GOP Establishment Swamp Ally McMaster with the WarHawk Ambassador John Bolton. With McMaster in place the GOP Establishment Swamp had a fairly reliable ally who would inform President Trump that the US was already in possession of the most advanced weaponry and that Military funding could wait. With Bolton; that distraction went down hard.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I realize that there are a significant number of people who have issues with Ambassador John Bolton; and I do have to admit that many of those issues are perhaps significant enough to warrant a separate discussion. That being said; I do believe that Ambassador Bolton has an accurate grasp of the reality of the National Security of the United States. I do believe that Ambassador Bolton has an accurate grasp of the reality of the National Security of the Allies and Trade Partners of the United States.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It is my opinion that Ambassador Bolton sees China as an increasingly aggressive world player that may be at the point of opening an attack against Taiwan. It is my opinion that Ambassador Bolton views North Korea as a ticking time bomb where the biggest danger isn't necessarily an attack by the North Koreans; but a distribution of North Korean resources to terrorists and dictatorships. So on down the list it goes to Russian and Iran. The Clinton and Obama pacification and appeasement has not been working. Case in point; Putin is now claiming that Russia has a hyper-sonic missile that can get past the Patriot Missile Defense Network. I don't believe Putin is crazy enough to actually throw the first punch... but traditional Russian Weapons Nation Customers such as Iran or Turkey? Yes. Oh so yes.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Just to drive this point home; we know for an established fact now that members of the Obama Administration were reaching out to leaders of nations and groups that Obama engaged in appeasement with after the 2016 election. We know for an established fact that these nations and groups were told to be patient and resist Trump. We also know for an established fact that the reason the Obama Administration members gave for resisting Trump is that those members of Obama Administration flat told the leaders of those nations and groups that Trump would be impeached within a calendar year. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Think about that for a second. Some of the most unstable dictators and terrorists in the world have had Democrats shouting in their ears for over a calendar year to just wait until those Democrats had removed Trump from office. With the FBI's <i>"Insurance Policy"</i> crashing down; with the House Of Representative's Investigation finding zero collusion; with the wave of emails and texts clearly showing that the Obama Administration was the most corrupt Administration in the history of the United States... with all of that... does anybody really think that the collection of unstable dictators and terrorists appeased by the Obama Administration are just going to... sing KumBaYa... attach daisy flowers to their turbans... sit and smoke a peace pipe? Really? </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It is with a realistic view of the threats arrayed against the United States; the allies of the United States; and the trading partners of the United States; that I believe Ambassador Bolton likely advised President Trump that funding the military couldn't wait. Research and Design programs needed to be cranked back up; facilities needed to be repaired; in-service equipment needed to be overhauled; and Soldiers needed to start being paid what they were worth for their service. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><i>Why Call the Buff? The Long Game?</i></b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The second factor that the GOP Establishment Swamp had not counted on is that President Trump is very good at playing a long game. The vast expanse of President Trump's real estate assets weren't built on short-tail economic practices. Winery's and Hotels are business's that have to be constructed to last decades; if not generations. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
When playing a long game it sometimes becomes required to, well, take one for the team. Vetoing the Omnibus bill would delight the vast majority of legally voting American Citizens for the moment. How would that veto play in the November elections though?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
How would the GOP Establishment Swamp spin the veto? Would they, as already noted, use a veto to claim that President Trump was not actually open to bipartisan deals? Would they use the veto to indicate that President Trump was not actually willing to fund the military? </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
More importantly; how would it affect the political party of the Democrats? With a vast majority of legal voting American Citizens against the Omnibus; sending the collection of bills rolled up into the Omnibus back to Congress would only give legal voters time to express their displeasure. Politicians who ride polls for each and every decision would undoubtedly abandon an attempt to force a 2/3 majority override of the veto. Various bills would be sent back to committee; and a number of the pork projects that Liberal Democrats want would likely never be able to pass a future congress. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>Who Would Those Liberal Democrat's Blame?</i></div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
The obvious answer is: <i>Nancy Pelosi </i>and <i>Chuck Schumer</i>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Both DNC leaders are currently fighting to maintain their control and grip over the various members of the DNC. A veto of the Omnibus would have only strengthened the positions of elected Democrat's like Conor Lamb who ran on <i style="font-weight: bold;">Anti-Pelosi</i> platforms. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
While disarray in the DNC might be seen as a good thing; the reality is that Pelosi and Schumer keep pushing the DNC further and further leftward. Removing their influence could, in theory, allow the Democratic Party to actually go through a resurgence and reclaim disenchanted and disillusioned voters. Which is a bad thing to have happen. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That's the long game that I think President Trump had in mind.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><i>Bait. Set. Hook. Game. Wait, Who Won?</i></b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
By signing the Omnibus bill President Trump stepped square into the trap set by the GOP Establishment Swamp; performing the exact action the GOP Establishment Swamp had never considered President Trump could actually commit. President Trump ticked off his supporters.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Deliberately. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The fallout was immediate across many of the sources I keep track of. Press Releases were cancelled, emergency meetings were called, and memos circulated like wildfires. Collectively; the winners of the Omnibus bill weren't acting like winners.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
DNC Agitators had lost their public relations victory by the very act of President Trump signing an ostensibly bipartisan piece of legislation. Far from being able to present a President who was unwilling to deal; DNC Agitators found themselves once again called out for their own refusal to deal on subjects the DNC Agitators had previously said they were willing to fight for. Need I remind readers of how DNC Agitators turned and ran from DACA once it suddenly became a possibility that one of the most despised over-reaches of power in the Obama Administration could actually go through a proper legislative process? </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Active members of the DNC Resistance against Pelosi and Schumer were likewise engaged in twiddling their thumbs and looking morosely at each other. The sheer amount of pork brought home by the dynamic duo once again made the Pelosi and Schumer leadership ticket untouchable in the eyes of DNC donors. Far from fragmenting the DNC and creating an environment in which <i>Anti-Pelosi</i> tickets could attract big-donor-backers; the DNC has once against found itself in a position where donors will once again only back candidates who have the approval of Pelosi and Schumer. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The GOP Establishment Swamp found their names inextricably tied to one of the worst fiscal bills in the history of the United States. They had placed all their eggs in the basket with a presidential veto. Like DNC Agitators the planned propaganda had vanished with the swish of a pen. Instead of planting a target on President Trump; the GOP Establishment Swamp found themselves directly in the path of outraged voters. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
From what I observed the DNC Agitators, Anti-Pelosi contingent, and GOP Establishment Swamp were at a complete loss of what to do in the wake of the Omnibus signing.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><i>President Trump's supporters knew exactly what to do.</i> </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Typically in election history the party that takes the Presidential Slot looses congressional seats in the subsequent 2 year elections. There are any number of theories as to why this is so; but the dominant factor is likely voter engagement. The loosing party in an election, if they intend to run again, typically take some time to figure out who they didn't appeal to, why they didn't appeal to those voters, and what can be done to be made appealing to those voters. Ergo the loosing party does not stop engaging with voters and thus keep a running momentum.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The winning party, however, doesn't really see a need to change their approach. They won. If things don't go so well in the years between elections; then the re-election campaign is all about blaming somebody else for things going bad. If things went well, the re-election campaign is all about keeping things at the status-quo. Ergo; the winning party can stop engaging with voters and the momentum of winning is lost. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
With a dramatically successful 2017 under President Trump's belt; it's very easy to imagine the Trump Supporter base sitting back on it's laurels. The economy is moving again; the Obama Era Regulations are biting the dust; taxes have been lowered; and paychecks are going up. Across 2015 and 2016 the Trump Supporters were fighting for their very livelihoods; fighting to take back control from an openly corrupt administration. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In 2018? Everything's fine? What's to worry or panic about?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Then President Trump tossed a hand grenade into his supporter base.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As the day wore on I tracked a number of potential candidates for congressional seats nationwide taking stances on what they would repeal from the Omnibus if they were elected to office; taking stances on approving President Trump's request for Line-Item-Veto's of passed legislation; and openly committing to helping President Trump's aim to <b><i>Make America Great Again</i> </b>by preventing such an abuse of legislative rail-roading by getting into office and forcing Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan out of their offices. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Within hours of the signing of the Omnibus bill; the voting base that carried President Trump into office in the face of a hostile purchased media, a rigged election, and a mandated coronation was in a full-blooded red-tilt frenzy. From what I tracked donations to #MAGA candidates soared as legal US Voters dug into their pockets to help elect representatives who would fight against the DNC and GOP Establishment Swamp.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><i>In Total</i></b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
By signing the Omnibus bill President Trump managed to pull off an exceptional series of subsequent actions. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
President Trump managed to ensure that Pelosi and Schumer retained their top positions in DNC Leadership; ensuring that DNC candidates in November would be cut from the same cloth that Legal US Voters abhor. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
President Trump managed to nail the GOP Establishment Swamp into taking specific voting positions on everything from Gun Control to Planned Parenthood that are deeply unpopular with Legal US Voters. Now the GOP Establishment Swamp will have to answer for their votes at the election poll; instead of being let off the hook by a veto.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
President Trump managed to reignite the fire and passion in his base. Some might argue the fire and passion never went away; but the ripples of candidates saying <i>"Never another Omnibus"</i> went from shore to shore. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
President Trump managed to fund the military. After years of being turned into a giant social experiment by an openly corrupt administration there is much work to be done to once again establish the US Military as the one force other nations can turn to for help and security. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Was all that worth another round of deficit spending; ticked off voters; and fulfilling pork projects voters already said no to?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'm thinking... Yes.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I do think President Trump made the right decision; both in the military aspect; and the aspect of what will happen come the November elections. </div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16837441025951698498noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4202507793705383029.post-44354290545619517172016-10-09T16:56:00.000-07:002016-10-10T03:23:13.740-07:00Trump2016: The Anatomy of a Failed AttackIn just a few short hours the second of the 2016 Presidential Debates will get underway; but it isn't the debate that many were thinking it would be. Just less than 72 hours ago the Liberal Broadcast, Print, and Online media launched one of their most vicious attacks against Republican Nominee Donald Trump. After over a calendar year of muckraking and soil shifting there was finally an attack that would end the threat of Trump once and for all. Liberals and Establishment Republicans alike were, and pardon the mental imagery, fellating themselves over the impending doom of Donald Trump.<br />
<br />
This attack would certainly be the linchpin that would cause the <i>Make America Great Again</i> movement to wither and die. The attack that would send Trump himself back into one of his vast towers to never be seen again. The laser-targeted karma bomb that would ensconce an Establishment Republican square where one belonged in the Republican listing for the ballot box. The indisputable evidence that would ensure the victory of the <i>Secretary of the Status Quo</i> and once again enshrine <i>Republicans In Name Only</i> in their comfortable couches doing nothing inside the Beltway.<br />
<br />
The attack was simple. Nothing more than a tape of Donald Trump before a cameo appearance on a Soap Opera several years ago saying something rather vulgar and crude. Proof that Donald Trump's character was so thoroughly flawed he was unfit to serve in the Office of the President of the United States.<br />
<br />
Within hours the sounds of cheers and popped champagne bottles from within the confines of Liberals and Establishment Republican Domiciles faded. In it's place came the sound of whimpers, glasses crashing into floors and walls, and then ever so faintly the sound of cursing and the gnashing of teeth.<br />
<br />
In a move completely unpredicted by any Liberal Politician or Establishment Republican an end run was made around the vaunted news networks. Before even 24 hours had passed, before the sun had even set over parts of the United States, before any focus group could have been convened, before any messages could have crafted with the help of a large public relations staff, before any of the usual steps that would be taken in the face of such a dire emergency, Donald Trump acted. At 11:19pm October 7th 2016 Donald Trump had posted videos available on both his Facebook and Twitter accounts.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/784609194234306560">https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/784609194234306560</a><br />
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/videos/10157844642270725/">https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/videos/10157844642270725/</a><br />
<br />
By the time 3:17am rolled around on October 8th 2016 Twitter was reporting 16,191 retweets and 32,343 favorites; while Facebook had increased to 2.7 million reported views. In the middle of the night and already the videos had accumulated more unique views than CNN gets on a yearly basis; dominating the social network trending results.<br />
<br />
The content of the videos was a simple speech with these opening lines:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Here is my statement. </i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>I’ve never said I’m a perfect person, nor pretended to be someone that I’m not. I’ve said and done things I regret, and the words released today on this more than a decade-old video are one of them. Anyone who knows me, know these words don’t reflect who I am.</i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><i>I said it, it was wrong, and I apologize.</i></b></blockquote>
The day hadn't even ended on the attack and Donald Trump took ownership of the words; expressed remorse; and offered an apology. The very simple steps a Liberal Politician or Establishment Republican would never, or even could never, consider enacting. There was absolutely no effort made in the statement to defend the taped event, hide it, disguise it, or contextualize it. Donald Trump did exactly what any reasonable person would have demanded in such circumstances.<br />
<br />
Rather than destroying Donald Trump the attack did nothing more than outrage an already angry voter base. Now a number of politicians who decided to ride the coattails of the attack might be facing their own rapidly diminished career options.<br />
<br />
<h4 style="text-align: center;">
A Doomed Attack</h4>
<br />
In talking with various people on October 8th I came to an unusual conclusion. For many voters the attack itself was on an already settled issue. Senator Ted Cruz had broached the <i>New York Values</i> issue during the GOP Primary Debates. To many outside voters New York is the city that made no effort to initiate a recall vote on Mayor Deblasio. It was the state that somehow sent Hillary Clinton into political office where she did nothing. It was the state where the Attorney General opened up investigations for purely political reasons with no actual legal cause to support those investigations.<br />
<br />
Investors who engage in trading on New York's Wall Street have reputations of very loose couplings between morals, ethics, and business practices. As a New York businessman himself Donald Trump has often been the very caricature of the not-that-attractive rich person who can afford a Trophy Wife. Sanctity of life, marriage, and even traditional family values are not really associated with the Wall Street Business Crowd.<br />
<br />
Donald Trump's own potentially loose connections to the values that many under the Republican banners hold dearly was a huge part of the GOP nomination process. The voters decided though that they didn't care about Donald Trump's three marriages. They didn't care about his reputation, real or perceived, as a skirt chaser through the years.<br />
<br />
The attack itself then; of quote/unquote <i>"Locker Room Banter"</i> over skirt chasing; wasn't anywhere close to pressing the limits how many voters have viewed Donald Trump over the years. Just to put this in perspective, one of my friends once outright stated that his only issue with Trump is that he wished Trump would stay within 20 years of his <i>(Trump's)</i> own age for a wife.<br />
<br />
For a vast majority of the Republican base that had supported Donald Trump from the start; and those who had flocked to the banner afterwards; the attack wasn't addressing anything that had not already been addressed. It was a dead issue.<br />
<br />
It wasn't like the attack would be particularly beneficial to dissuading Democrat Defectors either:<br />
<br />
<h4 style="text-align: center;">
Open The Floodgates on Bill</h4>
<br />
The most catastrophically under planned aspect of the attack on Donald Trump is that the video was only of one incident. That incident took place in the year <b>2005</b>.<br />
<br />
Donald Trump has been a Public Figure since at least the 1970's. Never mind for a moment that the Obama Administration has been trying to discredit Donald Trump since he took issue with Obama's lack of transparency and unwillingness to simply be truthful. Just starting from the first GOP Primary Debate in 2015 it took over a calendar year for somebody, <i style="font-weight: bold;">ANYBODY</i>, from any party or campaign to dig up something with Donald Trump saying something totally screwed up... and it was from eleven years ago.<br />
<br />
This was not a recent event such as Hillary Clinton's <i>Basket of Deplorables</i> or <i>Basement Dwellers</i>. insults. This wasn't an ongoing re-occurrence such as Bill Clinton's <i>Energizer</i>.<br />
<br />
There is no line-up of women on social media filing police reports and attempting to take legal actions because Donald Trump did or said something sexual towards them. There is no overwhelming employment record suggesting Donald Trump has a personal misogynistic streak in his own companies. There is no evidence of such vulgar skirt-chasing talk being more than a contextualized one off incident; if that.<br />
<br />
There is, however, a long string of such events with Bill Clinton. There are numerous police reports on file accusing the former president of sexually charged acts. Such charges covering abuse, assault, and even outright rape.<br />
<br />
There has been a long litany of attempted legal actions against Bill Clinton over his sexual actions. Legal actions that been countered directly by Hillary Clinton. Victims of Bill Clinton's sexual actions charge Hillary with acts of obstruction of justice and intimidation.<br />
<br />
There is an entire universe of difference between something Donald Trump said; and what Bill Clinton actually did. A difference that, should Donald Trump be on his Alpha Level game in the 2nd Presidential Debate; receive the quite the highlight.<br />
<br />
The Liberal Politician and Establishment Republican desperately wanted for there to be no debate; as a result of Donald Trump withdrawing from the race; or if there was a debate for it to be entirely about what an awful human being Donald Trump was. Instead all the attack on Donald Trump has done is to give a platform to talk about Bill Clinton's misdeeds and Hillary's Complicity in burying those misdeeds.<br />
<br />
Given that the Bill Clinton was sent into the Office of the President of the United States twice; and given that Hillary Clinton finally has her own shot at the office; circumstantial evidence would highly suggest that the average voter for the Party of the Democrats has absolutely zero interest in sexually charged words or actions being a factor in their decision. That circumstantial evidence would then highly suggest that the average Democrat Defector crossing party lines wouldn't be affected by the taped event either.<br />
<br />
<h4 style="text-align: center;">
The Stone is not for Throwing</h4>
<br />
As the debate looms ever closer and social network feeds start trending over what people expect to see or hear; other thoughts cross my mind. As I think about the attack itself I'm struck by how similar it is to events that would be found in movies from the likes of Jim Carrey, Kevin Smith, Seth Rogen, or Adam Sandler. I find myself wondering just how much of the taped event was Donald Trump being serious; or just simply telling his own version of the very offensive jokes that have defined Raunchy Comedies over the years.<br />
<br />
I find myself wondering where the outrage and anger is at the movies and television that continually push the envelopes of decency, morality, and ethics. What made Donald Trump's event so different, or so unusual, that it could possibly justify any publication or person calling for Donald Trump to withdraw from the race?<br />
<br />
I don't have an answer for that; because I don't think there is one beyond simple political spite. A call for withdrawal should have only been issued if Donald Trump had openly refused to apologize, ducked an apology, or performed some sort of Hillary Clinton style action to avoid taking any responsibility. Instead of acting appropriately, the Liberal Politicians, Establishment Republicans, and those collected under the NeverTrump banner, have only gotten more bitter; and more aggressive; as the end of their political futures approaches.<br />
<br />
Possibly the most damaged out of all of the Republican Figures who took to calling for Trump to withdraw is <i>Carly Fiorina</i>. Carly spent a significant amount of her own presidential campaign trying to convince potential voters that she was not the same person she was in 2005. The person who routinely shows up on lists of <b><i>Worst CEOS of All Time. </i></b><br />
<b><i><br /></i></b>
Then, in a single tweet, all of that work got thrown away. Carly might sound like me, might sound like she reads my blog, but jumping on Donald Trump without a proof of pattern or re-occurrence is a mistake her political career might not recover from. The key here is those patterns and points of re-occurrence.<br />
<br />
Case in point would be Bill Clinton. According to Colin Powell the former president is still bedding down anything with a pulse that will drop it's panties. The issue of Bill Clinton's sexually charged actions matter because it is still very much a part of the former president's ongoing life.<br />
<br />
Then there is the entire issue of Hillary Clinton herself. The single event captured on tape with Donald Trump resulted in no loss of life, no loss of property, and if it weren't for the leak of that tape it would have gone completely unnoticed. By contrast Hillary's behind the scenes actions have caused the direct loss of American Lives, the indirect loss of American Lives, the destruction of personal and private property of American Citizens, the open access of United States national secrets to foreign powers, open maleficence in office, obstruction of justice, interference in a federal investigation, the loss of American jobs, the collapse of American Health Care, and so on and so forth.<br />
<br />
The patterns and re-occurrences of Hillary Clinton's constant stream of lies, propaganda, crafted messages, and covert actions paint a very vidid picture of somebody who belongs in a Federal Penitentiary. What Hillary Clinton did in private <i style="font-weight: bold;">MATTERS</i> because her actions have had very real negative and destructive effects on American Citizens.<br />
<br />
Donald Trump might not be the ideal candidate that every Republican Desires. Donald Trump is, however, the candidate that the party voted for.<br />
<br />
The key point now is too look at how Donald Trump handles the challenges thrown his way. Donald Trump did the right thing, the correct thing, the moral and ethical thing, by owning up to the words of his past and issuing an apology. That kind of action is the one that deserves support; not condemnation.<br />
<br />
It was the action that requires everybody who understands just what threat Hillary poses to stand up and say: <i style="font-weight: bold;">We Need To Elect Donald Trump</i>.<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16837441025951698498noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4202507793705383029.post-67505626765602529312016-10-06T13:33:00.000-07:002016-10-06T14:01:27.134-07:00A Vote For anybody but Donald Trump is a vote for Hillary ClintonAs early voting get's underway I wanted to try and address a few subjects that have been sitting in my mind since Senator Cruz nearly ended his national career ambitions at the GOP convention. I've taken so long to address those subjects that Senator Cruz has had time to honor his pledge to endorse the GOP Nominee; as well for the number of scandals surrounding Hillary Clinton to increase. Perhaps the most relevant event to what I want to talk about concerns statements from Palmer Luckey of Facebook's Oculus division.<br />
<br />
The short version is that an event occurred that attached Palmer Luckey to support of Donald Trump. Kotaku, in following with the political mandate set by Gawker and apparently continued under Univision owership; launched a few attacks against Mr. Luckey. Then Mr. Luckey said something that he probably shouldn't have; saying he was going to vote independent. Which comes down to voting for Hillary Clinton.<br />
<br />
For those unfamiliar with the claims made about Mr. Luckey's intelligence, he supposedly solved critical issues with Virtual Reality displays in his back garage. ZeniMax/Bethesda has quite a different view; stating in an ongoing lawsuit that the critical issues with Virtual Reality displays were solved by IDSoftware and that John Carmack stole those technological solutions and gave them to Palmer Luckey's Oculus company. The ongoing court-case between ZeniMax/Bethesda and the current owner of Oculus, which is Facebook, is likely going to result in courtroom shenanigans making the SCO vs. IBM and Oracle vs. Google cases look polite and well mannered. That being said, Mr. Luckey's political commentary lends credence to the ZeniMax/Bethesda position that Mr. Luckey isn't the genius he's been made out to be.<br />
<br />
The outstanding point to be addressed here is the a number of people ranging from Republicans with long standing party associations; aka the quote/unquote #NeverTrump crowd; and others such as Mr. Luckey continue to suggest that voters look at an independent candidate rather than one of the two main political party candidates. For some it's seen as voting for a protest candidate; but under the current election system for the Office of the President of the United States; <i>Protest Candidates Do Not Exist</i>.<br />
<br />
More critically: under the current election system for the Office of the President of the United States; a vote for any candidate other than the Republican Nominee is always a vote for the Democratic Nominee.<br />
<br />
Confused? Let me try and explain.<br />
<br />
<h4 style="text-align: center;">
<i>Brace For Generalized Maths</i></h4>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
There are multiple aspects as to exactly why a vote against one candidate is a vote for a different candidate; even if the vote was cast for a third candidate. The first aspect I will address is that of the population ratio.<br />
<br />
Typically speaking in terms of United States History in regards to national level elections; 22%~29% of the public registered to vote will always vote for the same party; with the exact percentage largely only affected buy voter enthusiasm. If the Party is fired up it is likely that the higher end 29% figure will be out in force. If the Party is depressed it is likely that the lower end 22% figure will be in play.<br />
<br />
The obvious average data-point then is that roughly 44% to 58% of the public registered to vote is exempt from the promotional cycles. This leaves anywhere from 42% to 56% of the population registered to vote actually being open to vote for a different candidate. Many independent candidates come across these numbers and then think they have a chance to win a national level seat; since an average rough half US citizens who are registered to vote could be available.<br />
<br />
It's not that simple.<br />
<br />
<h4 style="text-align: center;">
<i>The Difference Between Registered to Vote; And Voting</i></h4>
<br />
The key point to be made here is that party ideologues with a vested interest in the winner of an election are more likely to turn out to vote than the 42% to 56% that could be swung either way on any given election. In plain terms; think of it this way:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>30% of the population that actually votes will always vote Democrat</li>
<li>30% of the population that actually votes will always vote Republican</li>
<li><b>60% of the population vote is already sewn up before the first ballot is cast.</b></li>
</ul>
<br />
This is the key point as to why an independent candidate never stands a plausible chance of a victory on a national level. Only 40% of the population that actually votes is likely to step outside party lines. Most elections require that a candidate receive over 50% of the vote in order to qualify as the winner; although many elections may only require a simple majority.<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>The Democrat Candidate only needs to convince 21% of the undecided population</li>
<li>The Republican Candidate only needs to convince 21% of the undecided population </li>
<li><b>The Independent needs 35% of the undecided population for a guaranteed tie</b></li>
</ul>
<br />
The math here isn't that complex. If an Independent does not carry at least 35% of the undecided vote; then the opposing parties would each only need that remaining unclaimed 5% to reach a tie; 30% + 5% being 35%. Even if the Independent got 34.99% of the vote; the 5.01% unclaimed vote would be enough to give another party the edge in a simple majority election.<br />
<br />
This is why candidates not affiliated with major parties can win at a local, state, or even parliamentary level as in the case with the Pirate Party. Independently aligned candidates fare better where local issues are the defining aspect of a race. Against larger party competition; the problem quickly scales out of a reasonable perspective. Compared to the major party candidates; the independently aligned candidate has to openly appeal to nearly twice as many voters who will actually vote.<br />
<br />
While candidates have successfully run on single-issue platforms for various offices; higher-level national offices typically require more than just single-issue candidates. The candidates have to address a wide spectrum of issues; which in turn decreases the viability of a single-issue candidate.<br />
<br />
This is an aspect of the problem the GOP has run into in past elections. As the election race for the office of the President of the United States draws towards it's ballot box date the GOP candidates have typically raced for a middle-road political position; leaving no real differences in policies or platforms compared to the competition.<br />
<br />
Independents trying to court votes on a wider scale typically run into the problem that for the most part; they don't actually have that many policies or platforms that are radically different; if different at all; from a candidate in a major party. Appealing to nearly twice the number of voters that a major party candidate has to appeal to means having to make greater compromises on positions and ideologies. This means that not only does a candidate have to work to gain more votes than a major party competitor; a candidate also has to do that work while trying to be different enough from either major party competitor to stand out; while also adopting enough of each parties major platform points in order to attract the voters who would lean closer towards chosing a major political party candidate.<br />
<br />
<h4 style="text-align: center;">
<i>Bringing Trump Back In</i></h4>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
The problem of numerical statistics is even greater for Donald Trump. Donald Trump is probably the first candidate in a long time nominated to the candidacy position where various party members with timeline seniority have no intention of supporting the party candidate.<br />
<br />
Roughly speaking; 10% of the active and enthused Republican Base might not vote for Donald Trump. For reference that figure is largely obtained through the analysis of voter activity over the course of the 2016 Presidential Primaries as NeverTrumpers slowly shifted percentage ratios to candidates that were not Donald Trump. The actual number is probably far smaller; but the point of keeping the math simple; the generalized maths probably go something like this:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>30% of the voting population will vote Hillary Clinton no matter what happens.</li>
<li>20% of the voting population will vote Donald Trump no matter what happens.</li>
<li>10% of the voting population will NOT vote Donald trump regardless of what happens</li>
<li>40% of the voting population could still be swayed one direction or another.</li>
</ul>
<br />
Since most State races require a simple 50% majority; Donald Trump has the unfortunate position of having to attract at least 31% of the unclaimed 40% in order to win a general election; while Hillary Clinton only has to attract 21% of that unclaimed 40% to carry victory.<br />
<br />
That's a pretty tall order. It's made more complex by:<br />
<br />
<h4 style="text-align: center;">
<i>That Electoral College</i></h4>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
On paper and in conception the Electoral College was a brilliant stroke of government design. The Founding Fathers of the United States had come from a country where the city born Barons, Dukes, Kings, Queens, and other associated members of royalty dictated life outside their walls; without a clue as to what people outside those walls actually did. The disconnect between city life and those who tilled the land itself is a largely under-accredited aspect of the events highlighted at the Boston Tea Party. For those who studied history in a US School through the 1990s or into the 2000's, the Boston Tea Party was not actually a social event where US and British Sailors got into a slap fight.<br />
<br />
It was a protest against the British royalty raising taxes without any representation from those on whom the taxes where levied. In other words; the British Royalty decreed that the colonists would simply hand over more money; even though they didn't do a single thing to make that money. If that sounds familiar to the DNC's line of <i>"RAISE TAXES!" </i> ... congrats. You are officially smarter than Hillary Clinton.<br />
<br />
The initial construction of the US Voting System thus tied voting rights to Men who actually owned real estate. This insured that whoever voted; and in turn whoever actually participated in politics; had a very real stake in the effects of their decisions.<br />
<br />
However; the Founding Fathers likely did envision a day when maybe the framework wouldn't be so tightly tied to whoever actually owned land. The Electoral College then is a solution to decoupling the direct stake each voter has in each election; an in turn leveraging other factors; such as economic conditions or local culture; have a greater factor in a chosen candidate.<br />
<br />
At it's core; the Electoral College is supposed to function under the same tenants as Congress itself. The basic flow chart kind of looks like this:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigdzqfgxMEiRxd5_oog7wbBEvCyAkQnqBltqBw-PNd-gS7V6kblCocs3HyW_3247ICHW7y8XyLAJ6kxcpXTw_jHJt0Sx52lmsGN68tMNGc-_RnmmdPuQL-Cs75sosulLRnMlGmvA21Khpk/s1600/outline-of-election.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="182" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigdzqfgxMEiRxd5_oog7wbBEvCyAkQnqBltqBw-PNd-gS7V6kblCocs3HyW_3247ICHW7y8XyLAJ6kxcpXTw_jHJt0Sx52lmsGN68tMNGc-_RnmmdPuQL-Cs75sosulLRnMlGmvA21Khpk/s320/outline-of-election.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
In local elections the voter directly casts their vote for a candidate. In larger elections; such as the election for the Office of the President of the United States; the vote is used to determine the <i>Elector</i> of the candidate. The Elector then represents the interests of those who voted and casts their Electoral Vote on the basis of what the constituents voted for. This follows the same rough model of Congress is helping to shape a majority represented opinion on legislation.<br />
<br />
This was an ideal solution to the growing nature of the United States when the primary method of travel involved a horse. It made much more sense for a single rider to carry the representation of their city, county, or state in the form of a cast vote. Such a system would also scale with size; the electoral process itself helping to distill a wide range of potential candidates for a single political position.<br />
<br />
However; the system has never really been readjusted for modern times. The election process for the office of the President Of the United States still awards the totality of the electoral college vote on the basis of whoever carries the total population of a state. In states like California the vast majority by land might vote Republican; but since Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, and Oakland are hotbeds of liberal democrat ideology; just roughly 4 cities dictate the economic and social consequences for the rest of the state.<br />
<br />
This distillation of the population vote into a representative vote is the very process <b>that completely eliminates protest votes or non major party candidates</b>. <i style="font-weight: bold;"> </i><br />
<br />
Of course; the Democrats don't want the system to be updated. Even a cursory glance at voting percentages by land over the 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012 elections show that a Democrat would likely never again be able to hold a national level office if the Electoral College was shifted to use a district system that more closely followed the intent of the Electoral College. Right now it's just politically expedient to award the entire electoral college of a state to whoever carries the population vote; regardless of the real economic and social repercussions.<br />
<br />
<h4 style="text-align: center;">
<i>What this means for Your Own Personal Vote</i></h4>
<h4 style="text-align: center;">
<i><span style="font-weight: normal;">or: Why You Should Vote for Donald Trump</span></i></h4>
<div>
<i><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div>
Under the current system of election for the Office of the President of the United States the only purpose a vote for a third party candidate is to deny either Major Party Candidate a population vote. Or in simpler terms: <b>It Means That A Voter Did Not Want Their Vote To Count</b>. </div>
<br />
I understand a lot of the fear, uncertainty, and even doubt that surrounds Donald Trump. I've dealt with such F.U.D. from Microsoft for literal decades now. Politically speaking Donald Trump is not my ideal candidate; but he has been making almost all of the correct maneuvers. Donald Trump has been seeking out the advice of all the people I would go to to seek out advice. I might not like all of his policies; but I can envision and understand them.<br />
<br />
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is most certainly the candidate nobody wants. The Democratic National Party turned her down for a shot at the Presidential Nomination in 2004 when it was decided she didn't have enough support to run at all; in 2008 when she did run against the no-name Barack Obama; and again in 2012 when she ran against one of the worst sitting Presidents in the history of the United States.<br />
<br />
As of this posting Hillary Clinton has become the poster child for Open Corruption. Her husband openly meets with the Director of the Department of Justice for the United States during a criminal investigation. The Federal Bureau of Investigation for the United States destroys evidence under subpoena from both Congress and a Federal Judge; while granting limited immunity to prosecution outside the legal constraints of a Sitting Grand Jury. The FBI Director also openly admits that a criminal investigation failed to address evidence uncovered by Congress or uncovered in other ongoing Federal cases. The same FBI Director that also confirmed Hillary's confessions of various crimes then declining to recommend prosecution in the same breath.<br />
<br />
The Obama Administration is no longer bothering to hide it's open stonewalling of Congressional Investigations or ongoing Federal Level Lawsuits. Involved parties are being told that evidence under subpoena will not be made available. The FBI refused to provide Congress with unredacted reports; forcing a dramatic showdown on Broadcast Television. <br />
<br />
On top of all of the legal scandals, Hillary Clinton openly insults anybody who holds opposing viewpoints. Need I say more than <i>Basket of Deplorables</i>.<br />
<br />
Despite all of the legal issues; trust issues; health issues; and absolute lack of interest; a significant number of Print and Broadcast Media Organizations would have voters believe that Hillary Clinton still holds an electoral edge. To just try and put this in perspective:<br />
<br />
In the wake of the first Presidential Debate of 2016 the vast majority of responses in the 48 hours after the debate showed Donald Trump as the winner with a 2:1 ratio. In other words; out of about every 100 people that would vote in a trackable poll over who won the debate; Donald Trump had 66% to 67% of the vote versus Hillary Clinton's 33% to 34%. <br />
<br />
Yet; polls trying to determine who would win the election if the election were held ahead of time showed Hillary Clinton gaining a bump in her poll numbers while Donald Trump's numbers dipped.<br />
<br />
Pardon my Russian for a moment: <b><i>Какого черта!, Черт возьми!, Ради бога! Это не логично. </i></b><br />
<b><i><br /></i></b>
This would mark the first time in modern polling history where a candidate won a Presidential Debate and had their numbers drop; while the loser had their numbers bump. It defies belief and comprehension.<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><b><br /></b></i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<h4>
<i><b>What Hillary Has:</b></i></h4>
</div>
<br />
The only thing Hillary has left is an infrastructure. There are a massive number of fiscally vested parties involved with Hillary's campaign; ranging from bought-off labor unions to openly corrupt local, if not state, governments. The vast voting base that always votes for the Democratic Candidate is not going to go away. There are a large of number of US Citizens who are under a perceived, if not possibly realistic, pressure to vote for Hillary or lose their livelihood. <br />
<br />
The Democratic National Party might not be enthused about voting for Hillary; but they'll show up at the polls. The DNC will also cheat; committing every single little bit of voter fraud the DNC and it's affiliates can get away with.<br />
<br />
Proving Voter Fraud though is notoriously difficult. In states that are bastions for members of the DNC it can be nigh-on impossible to do something as simple and sane as ask for a Drivers License or other proof of identification before voting. Record numbers of illegal aliens will also find their way into the voting polls due to the efforts of DNC members.<br />
<br />
It's this infrastructure of illegal votes, coerced votes, and legal votes that still give Hillary Clinton the potential capability to carry the 2016 election. It doesn't matter how nasty her campaign is; how many crimes she is known to have committed; or anything else.<br />
<br />
<h4 style="text-align: center;">
<i>The Solution:</i></h4>
<br />
The solution is a simple one. Do not throw a vote away. Do not cast a meaningless symbol that is discarded by the in-place system. There are better, and more accurate, methods of national elections that can follow the framework the Founding Fathers of the United States laid out. The system can be fixed; but it requires taking steps to get to a point where the system can be fixed.<br />
<br />
A vote for a third party candidate is not a solution. It just simply means one less vote towards a solution. If Mr. Palmer Luckey were really the genius he's been made out to be; he'd have an innate understanding of the electoral system and would have never suggested voting for a third party candidate.<br />
<br />
Right now that step towards solving the breaks in the Election System; the step towards ending the Open Corruption of the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton is this: <b>Vote For Donald Trump</b>.<br />
<br />
That's it. It's just that simple.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16837441025951698498noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4202507793705383029.post-77622977200449233892016-03-01T00:48:00.000-08:002016-03-01T01:34:57.137-08:00SuperTuesday: A Choice To Make. <div style="text-align: center;">
<b>In Route To Super Tuesday</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
Originally this post started life during the writing of why I had centered on choosing Ted Cruz as the US Presidential Candidate to support. In between that post and today the group of viable candidates has decreased substantially. In turn more and more of this post turned into a <i>postmortem</i> than a comprehensive look at what each candidate did, or did not bring to the table. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In the intervening time Eric S. Raymond linked an interesting, if vitriolic, opinion post with rather vivid mental imagery reflecting upon the anger casual voters might display towards the state of the mind of the quote/unquote <i>"Establishment"</i> within the Republican Party. I saw other sites; both political and non-political; start running stories that <i>Voter Anger</i> in general was a real problem not just for the GOP to deal with, but for the DNC as well. Polling numbers from the states that have completed either their caucus stage or their primary votes have shown a dramatic rise in per-population percentage ratios under the Republican Party compared to elections across 2014, 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, and so on; almost reaching back to the 1980's and the election of Ronald Reagan. In turn; the per-population ratios for the DNC have likewise fallen to, if I'm not mistaken, possibly record breaking lows. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In turn this post morphed yet again; starting to focus in on the GOP's game plan to deal with an outraged voting base. In respect to changing focus; elements were added covering the possibility that quite a few of those who would normally vote in a DNC Primary making the jump towards voting in a GOP primary. Which eventually lead to a completely incoherent mess. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
As <i>SuperTuesday</i> polling hours draw ever closer; I turned back to the keyboard to try and wrangle together some of the points I wanted to make. I'm not sure that in the limited time between when this post will go live and the opening of the polling precincts that there will be time enough for there to be any kind of impact. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
With that in mind; I do want to say this. <b>If you are an American Citizen who can vote on 3/1/2016: Your Best Vote is for Senator Ted Cruz. </b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
So; onward; which right now means turning back the pages of time:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<b>The Presidential Campaigns Begin</b></div>
<br />
<br />
In several ways I found myself perplexed by the width and breadth of the GOP's Presidential Candidates across the end of 2015. Even the worst candidates showing up at the initial undercard debates were still State level Governors with success stories for their time in office. For the first time in decades there were still at least 12 viable candidates under a calendar year out from the election date. For the first time in perhaps centuries there were viable candidates to be found among those who entered the party race from outside of the usual political spectrum.<br />
<br />
Yet, as 2016 rolled into play and the earliest precincts opened; 2014 repeated itself. The Republican Base had shifted. The average polled electoral voter wasn't interested in the family relative of two previous presidents; nor in the credentials that came with being a state Governor. Rather, the Republican Base, poll after poll, debate after debate, kept focusing on the Political Outsider's... or Politicians whose calling cards were printed with: <b>T.E.A. Party</b>.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The Outsiders</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Early on I found myself quite attracted to the Political Outsider Carly Fiorina; who as of this posting has suspended her campaign. I commented in a number of places that my memories of Carly Fiorina centered around her time at HP, her routine positioning in lists covering <i>Worst CEO's of All Time</i>, and her observed obsession with Microsoft Ideology. I still have very vivid memories of the turning point; when she went from somebody I could not care about to somebody I wanted to see take the nomination. I was driving in my car listening to an interview she was giving, and being able to complete her sentences word for word. Not because I was smart enough to know what she was going to say... but because she was quoting... Me.<br />
<br />
At the same time I was trying to wrap my head around the concept that Carly Fiorina had either been reading my blogs or came to the same intellectual conclusions I had come to over the years; another outsider perhaps pushed her out of the potential limelight. Dr. Ben Carson was perhaps the best outsider choice; being both perhaps the most intelligent person in the field and one who had accomplished some of the most difficult management tasks ever imaginable. In one of the later debates Dr. Carson brought up that he was not a stranger to making literal life-and-death calls at 2am; and nor was he unpracticed at putting together the best possible teams to take on staggeringly complicated tasks. Were the Presidential Election determined by sheer intellect as embodied in long-form research papers and detailed plans, Dr. Carson would surely be an easy choice.<br />
<br />
As of this posting there was an excellent editorial posted online from the good Doctor explaining why his campaign was still running as <i>SuperTuesday</i> closed in. Up until <i>SuperTuesday</i> more than 95% of the delegates to determine the GOP's nominee were still in play; the sub-5% already determined at best a highly inaccurate picture of the voting trends to come. The editorial was a first class example of exactly why Dr. Carson would have made a great President; but for me it is too little too late. If Dr. Carson had been writing such editorials after each debate; or even each week; or even going on-line through Youtube for a <i>Modern</i> take on the <i>Fireside Chat</i> public relations technique; then he might still be a contender that I would consider casting a vote for.<br />
<br />
Speaking of those debates; some unveiled perhaps a different side of Dr. Carson. In one of the late 2015 debates Dr. Carson shot back a complaint at a moderator because it took too long to ask Dr. Carson a question. While I feel sure that Dr. Carson was trying to make a point about the moderators at a previous debate; who were more interested in trying to craft a free-for-all among the candidates; the complaint came across as petty. Not exactly the image a Presidential Candidate really should be portraying; or repeating. Which Dr. Carson proceeded to perform at the very next debate; then the next debate; then the next; and so on. With other qualified candidates to chose from who all played to their strengths; there seemed to be little point to dwelling on Dr. Carson.<br />
<br />
Then there was the outsider taking the top spots in all the polls: Donald Trump. A business man with absolutely no filter on his mouth. After years of double-talk and political tongue wagging who did not want a candidate that just said the first thing that popped into their mouth? Who didn't want a candidate that had enough money in the bank to fund their own campaign so there'd be absolutely zero question of kowtowing to special interests?<br />
<br />
Yet, Trump was never the candidate for me. When Senator Ted Cruz took to a debate stage and talked about <i>New York Values </i>the meaning was clear. New York was the state where Hillary Clinton managed to find work in an elected office. New York was the state where an anti-police Mayor was elected into office. New York was a state where there was absolutely zero effort to recall that incompetent mayor. While Donald Trump might have been insulted by Senator Cruz's <i>New York Values</i> comments; Donald Trump was not insulted enough to fly back home, start the proceedings to get the mayor recalled from office, and get the State Attorney General to put Hillary Clinton in a maximum security holding cell.<br />
<br />
I'll come back to Mr. Trump for the conclusion; but I think the stage is set now to move onto the political candidates:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Shakedown</b></div>
<br />
So let's get to the point where I write about why I found myself choosing the politician Senator Ted Cruz by talking about why I would not want to support other political candidates. I'll start with Governor Chris Christie whom I have claimed is quite <i>Republican In Name Only</i>. Governor Christie has expressed personal views on subjects like abortion that I would find untenable to be held by somebody with a conservative disposition. During one of the debates Governor Christie was called on some of his personal actions; and to the best of discernible available evidence... lied his butt off.<br />
<br />
Which, honestly, I don't think the Governor had to do. I think it would have made a much stronger case for his candidacy if Governor Christie had looked straight at the moderator and said something to the effect of: <i>"You know what? I did give some money to Planned Parenthood back '94. You want to know something else? The organization I was familiar with back then, that I wanted to support back then, isn't the organization we know now. They weren't responsible for all of the tragedies we found out about in the late 90's and early 2000's. They weren't the very example of a corrupt business that the Federal Government should be spending Zero Dollars on. I'd like to think that I've grown up over the years; that I'm a better person than I was back then. I'd like to think I can learn from the mistakes of my past; and ensure that those mistakes are never repeated.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
Boom. Done. Governor Christie had the perfect opportunity to make a case for being a Conservative Republican coming out of New Jersey... and he blew it. By now his campaign is suspended and he has voiced support for <i>Donald Trump</i>. The <i>RINO</i> bit turned into quite a bite.<br />
<br />
Given the timing of this particular posting I won't delve into either Gov. Jeb Bush or Gov. John Kasich. As already referenced above; the voting populace simply has not been interested in either candidate; Gov. Jeb Bush having the good graces to suspend his campaign. Gov. Kasich has not realized it is long past time to bow out of the race.<br />
<br />
Which leaves Senator Marco Rubio and Senator Ted Cruz as the other two politicians.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Breakup</b></div>
<br />
Early on in the race I was personally torn between Senator Rubio and Senator Cruz. I liked the personal stories of both candidates. I liked many of the positions. I liked many of their policies. While Senator Cruz appeared to have the best on-paper policies; Sen. Rubio had a longer history of working across the aisle.<br />
<br />
Then; as referenced in the <i style="font-weight: bold;">I Choose Cruz </i>post; Senator Rubio just threw his viability into a trash can in the span of a single debate. As I sat re-watching the clips where Senator Rubio pulls out the shotgun and takes out one foot with a highly inaccurate and under-educated blurb on encryption; then promptly shoot the other foot with highly inaccurate takes on National Security and transparency; and then reload both barrels to subsequently blast the seat of his pants with a highly inaccurate take on Snowden; I was hit with an Epiphany.<br />
<br />
<b>The Average American Voter Does Not Care About Working Across The Aisle.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
The DNC, and in turn much of the quote/unquote Mainstream Media, have been playing up the importance of President working with an opposite party. The favorite example to date has been the amount of work between President Ronald Reagan and Congressional Representative Tip O'Neill.<br />
<br />
However; a quick check of the history books seems to reveal an interesting fact. While Rep. O'Neill was a Democrat; he was neither a Socialist or a Communist. Rather; all things considered; his reputation was far more middle of the road. President Reagan did not have to deal with a Congress that was controlled by an almost hostile radical political faction.<br />
<br />
The modern day DNC barely resembles the DNC of the late 1970's and early 80's. A DNC that was marked by candidates like <i>Jimmy Carter</i> and an opposition to the Socialist Policies that had wrecked nations around the world. The DNC might have been a little kooky; heavy on the idea of citizen entitlements; but they were a far cry from the policies of the Obama Administration or candidates such as Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.<br />
<br />
With that epiphany in mind I realized I knew why Donald Trump was so popular; and why DNC reported voting percentages were dropping like comparative stones.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Takeout</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In short; Donald Trump was a Democrat. He grew up in an environment heavily controlled by then DNC social ideals; but also while gaining real-world experience in business. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The DNC of today does not want people who hold Conservative Fiscal Policies; they want those who espouse Socialistic Social Policies. There is no room for anybody in today's DNC who believes that the Freedoms of Religion apply to Christians; or for anybody who believes that <i>All Lives Matter</i>; or for anyone who questions what business practices the Planned Parenthood organization actually participates in. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Record numbers of former loyal DNC party members are tired of watching their party drift further and further from the <i>"Glory" </i>days of Rep. O'Neill's time in office. One of the most notable was a Kentucky Clerk who was abandoned by her political party when she attempted to exercise her Religious Beliefs, only to find support among those in the GOP. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Donald Trump could probably seal his place in office by just getting up on a stage and saying something to the effect of: <i>You know what? I used to be a Democrat. I gave money to Democrat Politicians. I supported with my money what they told me to support. You know what? I found out they didn't want me anymore. They looked at my job creation, my success, and they said they didn't want me. They looked at my family; at my business; at me; and said they didn't want me. They looked at what I had to offer; and said they didn't want that. So I'm here. I found open arms in this Republican Party. I found people ready to listen to what I have to say; people who said "We Want You Donald Trump." So yeah, there's a lot in this Republican Party I'm not used to. There's a lot I haven't seen comin from New York. But you, you've shown me. As I've gone across this great land; talking to each and everyone of you; I've learned something. I've learned what you think is important. I've heard about your opposition to Planned Parenthood; I've heard you talk about my past; I've heard you talk about how I spent my money. Fine, I'm flexible on a lot of things; I'm a businessman who likes to negotiate; and that's the key here. Negotiation. There's room for us to talk. It's a give and take. I can tell you this much though; elect me and I'll do my best to represent each and every one of you. Everything you believe in, I want to be important to me; because that's how we get the best Deal. That's how we Win. </i></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
If Donald Trump were to embrace his position as somebody who is from the DNC of yesteryear; somebody outcast from the political party they would have called home; and somebody who found a home in the GOP, then he could probably ignite and combine those in the DNC suffering from <i>Voter Apathy</i> and those suffering from <i>Voter Anger</i> into an unstoppable force. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Only; Mr. Trump has seen fit to make a run for the far right; claiming conservative credentials he probably doesn't actually have. He has been accused of being a <i>Confidence Artist; </i>which in some ways is one of the largest <b>No Duh!</b> moments I have seen in recent memory. Mr. Trump is a businessman from New York with several billions in his bank account. That there could be possible connections to a Mafia of some kind or evidence of links to various <i>Cons</i> pulled over the years; would not be a big surprise. The link between successful New York Businessmen, Mafia types, and legally grey business practices is as stereotypical as a Corrupt Chicago Politician. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
However, I'm not entirely convinced that quasi-legal dealings in Mr. Trump's past; or potential Mafia connections; are a reason to entirely dismiss him as a Presidential Candidate. Mr. Trump has a reputation for the practice of looking after himself. I harbor no doubt that were Mr. Trump to be elected to the Office of the Presidential of the United States his desire to win; his desire to be the best at whatever he can be; would actually make for good qualities. Sure; it might bring back the days of <i>Crony Capitalism</i>; but Crony Capitalism is easier to fix than Socialistic Corruption. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In short; Donald Trump is probably somebody who would carry through on his campaign promises. He's a businessman first; and if American wins on Energy Production, transportation, resource production, immigration reform and ejection of illegal aliens; then Mr. Trump's properties win. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Yet; as I expressed before; my reason for not voting for Donald Trump stems not from his policies or beliefs; but because American Citizens have a much better candidate in the Republican Field. That candidate is <b>not </b>Senator Marco Rubio. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Shattered</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
As 2016 has closed off it's first 2 months I find my decision to step away from Marco Rubio easier and easier with each passing day. His announced policies are simply not as effective as anything Donald Trump or Senator Cruz have presented. His claim to be able to work across the aisle is meaningless when the aisle is dominated by an ideological gap rather than bridged with shared ideals. His promise to beat Hillary is hollow after his massive flubs on National Security, Encryption, and Snowden. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The only reason Marco Rubio still seems to be a viable candidate is a massive mistake on the part of the GOP <i>Establishment. </i>It is a near textbook example of "<i>Those who do not Learn from History are Going To Repeat It"</i></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Across 2008 and 2012 the GOP <i>Establishment</i> tried to move middle-of-the-road candidates through the political process. The attempts failed; with Senator McCain's stellar imitation of a planted vegetable certainly not helping his case; and Mitt Romney coming off of 2 previous losses in the primaries and a concerted effort to make the race a third time charm. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The fact is this: as candidates get closer and closer to the actual election; most candidates take a turn for middle-of-the-road rhetoric. The result is Presidential Elections with candidates who only have minor differences in their policies; rather than deep ideological differences that the country must vote on. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The tactic has twice now failed for the GOP Party. A middle of the road Republican Candidate simply cannot; under most normal conditions; win against a middle of the road Democratic Candidate; simply because the DNC typically offers status quo. Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were highly competitive with their middle of the road presentations; even if their actions in office barely resembled those of the campaign trails. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
So in 2016 one would assume that the GOP <i>Establishment</i>; which is best defined as the senior party members who are hung up on time-in-party as an ultimate deciding factor; would realize they had to change strategies. They needed something other than a middle of the road candidate; somebody whose every action screamed consistent ideology; somebody with a reputation for holding to a line.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Except that didn't happen.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The GOP <i>Establishment</i> tried to run the exact same playbook that cost the last too elections; with large amounts of resources to longstanding party members and not so much for party outsiders or those who rocked the Senatorial vote. The result was a disaster as both Gov. Jeb Bush and Gov. John Kasich helmed campaigns that seemed to have more in common with the <i>Titanic</i> than with the <i>HMS Conqueror</i>. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
So; as the Gov. Bush and Gov. Kasich campaigns ran aground like the <i>HSM Vanguard;</i> the big money backers and <i>Establishment types</i> turned to Sen. Marco Rubio. The very same Senator they had dismissed for not waiting for his turn to be President; and somebody who had shot his rump off on national television. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Senator Rubio, at some point, realized that his campaign needed some tweaks; so like Donald Trump Senator Rubio took off quickly towards the right-wing of his party. Since then my email in-box has been flooded with reasons why Senator Rubio is more conservative than Senator Ted Cruz on one topic or another.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The result? Senator Rubio comes across as a flip-flopper of a higher order magnitude; just based on the emails from the promotional campaigns. I suspect that if Senator Rubio's campaign hadn't been given buoyancy from the <i>Establishment</i> types; it would have already ran into the ground.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Quite simply; of the remaining GOP Candidates; Senator Rubio is easily the worst candidate possible who is still viable. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I found myself staring open-mouthed with the GOP Chairman, Reince Priebus, claimed something to the effect that it wasn't his position to tilt the scales of the nomination cycle. <b>BULL</b>.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
It <b>IS</b> with Chairman Priebus's purview as the Chairman of the GOP to let party members know when their actions put long term party gains at risk. Attempting to back another middle of the road candidate; attempting the same playbook that failed the last two Presidential elections; <b>DEMANDS</b> action from the Chairman's Office. It demands that Chairman Priebus flat out tell Party members they have one option:<b> Get a New Strategy</b>. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Strategy</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The new strategy is simple: Back Senator Ted Cruz with everything the Party has to offer. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
There are a number among the GOP who simply don't want Donald Trump to take the nomination. Fine. That is their prerogative. Running the old playbook isn't the way to get that result. Running the old strategy will not obtain that result. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
If Donald Trump can take the nomination in a one-on-one fight against somebody who is tested; principled; almost annoyingly consistent in his Conservative Values; then fine. Donald Trump will have earned that victory. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
That candidate that all those who want to <i>DumpTrump</i> need to support; is Senator Ted Cruz. </div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16837441025951698498noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4202507793705383029.post-67513282439533707332016-02-02T02:45:00.001-08:002016-02-02T11:00:00.500-08:00I (Would) Choose Cruz.<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The 2014 Preamble</b></div>
<br />
In 2014 US voters spoke en masse. An unprecedented wave of election results sent not just record numbers of freshmen representatives into both Houses of Congress; but also into the houses of Governors across the Union. On November 5th I wrote about that Absolute Mandate, the Power of those flying under the banner of <i style="font-weight: bold;">Taxed Enough Already</i>, and the utter revulsion of the Obama Agenda on G+: <a href="https://plus.google.com/+JeSaist/posts/a9BFnxZ9MrR">https://plus.google.com/+JeSaist/posts/a9BFnxZ9MrR</a><br />
<br />
What voters got across 2015 was not the implementation of their Mandate. What voters received instead was a sitting President that abjured from any pretense of following a rule of law. Instead of working within the confines of the Presidential Duties to draft legislation for a vote before Congress; the sitting President turned to policy edits and departmental orders to carry out his agenda. The abuse of so called <i>Executive Orders</i> were, to rephrase various contextual comments, carried out under the Chief Executive's belief that he was working to represent all of the US Citizens who did not vote.<br />
<br />
Which... there is no polite way to say this... is simply ludicrous. The United States is ostensibly a Republic; a style of government where citizens elect an individual who best represents the interests of those individuals. A salient point of the voting system is that elected representatives are bound to represent the interests of those who vote; not those who did not take the time and effort to vote.<br />
<br />
While the average US citizen watched the sitting President descend into observable childish lunacy; if not abject delusional behavior; attention then turned to the Congress which is charged with oversight of all of the actions that can be taken by a sitting President. Freshmen to the House of Representatives and Senate found themselves opposed not by the other political party; but by their own senior leadership. Senior Leadership that quickly found itself being referred to as <i>The Establishment</i>. An unattractive title if there ever was one.<br />
<br />
Clashes between <i>"The Establishment"</i> and those attempting to carry out the 2014 Election Mandate eventually came to some kind of internal conclusion. In a rare occurrence one of the Senior <i>"Establishment" </i>members holding the special position <i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives">Speaker of the House</a> </i>stepped down. Those attempting to carry out the 2014 Election Mandate had won an important internal battle.<br />
<br />
Throughout all those events one name continued to rise to the forefront and feature on the front pages of websites owned or controlled by Liberal Democrat Interests. One name was almost continually in circulation on every single site controlled by AOL Media's Arianna Huffington. One person who was bound and determined to carry out the expressed will of the People to stop the Obama Agenda and get the United States back on Track. One name that, despite not even being in the House of Representatives, was name-checked as a deciding factor that lead to the <i>Speaker of the House</i> turnover. One name that was attached to every single bill that needed to be defeated; one name that was attached to every single bill that was abandoned. One name who was making a difference that the Liberal Democrats and quote/unquote <i>Establishment Republicans</i> could not stand. One Singular Enemy who stood between the gates of the Obama Delusion and Sane Rational Behavior. One Enemy the quote/unquote "<i>Liberal Left"</i> was desperate to extinguish. The very embodiment of a real world <i>Senator Bail Prestor Organa</i>:<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>Senator Ted Cruz.</b></div>
<b><br /></b>
In some ways I'm not entirely sure that the preceding is hyperbole. I honestly saw more hit pieces on Senator Ted Cruz filter through Huffington controlled sites than any other political representative. In my book; anybody who can get on Huffington's nerves often enough that there is an observed editorial mandate to attack that person even on web sites that supposedly have zero political connection is probably somebody I want to spend a few hours playing Borderlands or UT'99 with. <br />
<br />
It would be fair then to say that I was already tilting in the direction of Senator Ted Cruz even before the first debates and the now legendary <b>Cruz Missile</b> swept through social media like a firestorm across a petrol laced corn field mid-drought. What locked him in though? What made him somebody that I... after spending an in-ordinate amount of time specifically advocating ideals and not names... would openly state: <b>You Need To Vote For This Candidate.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The Taxes</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
I'll go into why the other candidates sunk themselves for me in a different post; as for many there were very clear moments where they became somebody I would have difficulty voicing my support for. For Senator Cruz though; there wasn't really a singular moment where he said something, or did something, that turned him into somebody that I would openly support. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
It was rather a culmination of factors. The easiest place to start with is taxes; especially as I am somebody who self identifies as a member of the <b>T.E.A. Party. </b><a href="https://www.tedcruz.org/tax_plan/">Senator Cruz's Tax Plan</a> is freely available to view online on his own website. In essence the Tax Plan centers around dismissing the IRS and implementing a Flat Tax.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Now, I could waste reader's time talking about the benefits of a Flat Tax plan. I shouldn't have to do that as the information on why a Flat Tax plan is sane and reasonable should be self evident. For those who really do need that kind of information spoon fed to them are probably better off just following the link to Senator Cruz's website. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Instead I'd rather take the time and draw the link between the Tax System and political lobbying as I have done before on this blog; incidentally much to the dismay of a great number of political activists. The extensive loopholes, credits, bonus's, and collective write-offs in the currently implemented and IRS Enforced Tax Plan functions as a root cause driving one prong of the push on <i>Homosexual Marriage</i>. To put simply: <i>The Homosexual Lobby generally wants equivalent fiscal benefits to Heterosexual Couples despite not being able to fulfill the one obligation that those fiscal benefits are supposed to encourage: </i><b style="font-style: italic;">Produce the Next Generation</b>. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
A Flat Tax plan that impacts everybody equally makes it easier to directly deal with issues like housing, utility infrastructure, food resources, and other aspects of simply living outside the manufactured walls of how much credit any one particular house or apartment gets based on who is inside and what their sexual relations are. Ergo a flat-tax plan effectively ruins much of the Homosexual Lobby's mentality; removing the fiscal payoff(s) for having reached equivalent legal status for couples living together. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The Marriage Position</b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Removing the fiscal pillar that props the Homosexual Lobby up in turn makes it easier to reveal the second and more insidious prong of the Homosexual Lobby attack: <i>Forcing the government to tell "The Church" what "The Church" can and cannot do</i>. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
This segues into <a href="https://www.tedcruz.org/issues/life-marriage-and-family/">Senator Cruz's</a> positions on Marriage and Family Life. I, for one, really don't care what people do for sexual entertainment in the confines of their own apartments. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I do care when people's sexual entertainment and practices result in attempts to re-define various words. The entire concept of Marriage in relation to the US Government is one that is rooted within the Judeo-Christian concepts that the country was founded on. To repeat myself: <b>The Entire Point of the US Government Recognizing a Marriage is that the Union of a Man and a Women Brings About The Next Generation Of Citizen</b>. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
There just is no way around that simple fact. Senator Ted Cruz, to date, stands on that sane and rational understanding of just what the purpose of the Government's recognition of Marriage means. That in turn segues into the next point:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Citizenship</b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Recognizing that a Marriage brings about the next generation delves straight into Citizenship. I want to tangent for a bit here and write about Senator Ted Cruz's eligibility for the Office of US President. The challenge has been raised that while Senator Ted Cruz was born of an American Citizen Mother, his Father was not an American Citizen, and Senator Cruz was born off of US Soil in Canada. The US Constitution makes some specific statements on the eligibility of Presidential Candidates; and there are some arguments that suggest that because Senator Cruz's father was not an American, and because Senator Cruz wasn't born on National Soil or under a Protectorate, that the Senator is not eligible for the Office of US President.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b> Bull</b>.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Couple of numbers here. Props to those who grok the meaning without using Google: </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: left;">1839</li>
<li style="text-align: left;">19</li>
<li style="text-align: left;">1919</li>
<li style="text-align: left;">1920</li>
</ul>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
If you guessed or realized: </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: left;">Married Women's Property Act</li>
<li style="text-align: left;">19th Amendment</li>
<li style="text-align: left;">19th Amendment Introduced</li>
<li style="text-align: left;">19th Amendment Ratified</li>
</ul>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Congrats. You might already have figured out where this is going. When the US Constitution was written Women could generally not hold property; nor could they vote. As such the legislation was written with under the vernacular and context of the time. Over the years, as a country, the US came to the conclusion that Women did have rights, they could vote, and were equal citizens to Men. These legal victories are the lens upon which the Constitution's Limitations on Eligibility of Citizens for the Office Of President must be viewed. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Under that lens, as a son to an American Citizen, Senator Ted Cruz is eligible for the Office of the President of the United States. Period. Stop. There is no other argument. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Which circles back around to the points from earlier. The entire point of the US Government recognizing a Marriage is that a Marriage is one of the legal frameworks for recognizing a citizen of the country. Okay, fair argument that an ever growing number of US Citizens are produced out of wed-lock; but the point still stands. The recognition of a Marriage is part of the legal process in recognizing a chain of citizenship.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Immigration and Borders</b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Immigration, or rather the blanket-amnesty pushed by the Obama Administration, is another aspect of future citizenship. Senator Cruz is saying all the correct things; and his congressional record covers all of the desirable objectives. Chief among those objectives is simply enforcing the laws that are in place.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Yes. That does mean there will be a significant number of deportations. It's going to hurt. It is going to rip families apart. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
One of the self-evident problems is the sheer scale of illegal immigration within the US. A scale of millions that was only achieved largely due to efforts of those identifying under Liberal Left ideals working in border states to prevent laws from enforced. So called <i>Sanctuary Cities</i> are a symptom of the Liberal Left's contempt for what <b><i>everybody else</i></b> voted on; and for what was passed into the books of Law. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Senator Cruz has outlined a <a href="https://www.tedcruz.org/cruz-immigration-plan/">fairly comprehensive plan</a> on how he will address Immigration and Borders. I can't lie; it is going to hurt. Cleaning up messes other people caused is rarely pretty.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In reference to the security wall to be built on the southern border. <a href="https://plus.google.com/+JeSaist/posts/LdUd7BeMjom">I have my own crazy plan</a> to make the wall along the US's Southern Border a canal large enough to get two super-tankers side by side from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean; and I'd love it if Senator Cruz gave that moonshot a chance. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The Tipping Point(s)</b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
By now it should be pretty obvious. Senator Ted Cruz supports many, if not all, of the same ideals I have talked about here on this blogger, on G+, and on other various sites. Which comes back to the original question. When did everything Senator Cruz said and did culminate in me dusting this particular site back off to run a self-published post? </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Honestly. It was not Senator Cruz himself that tipped the plates.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
It was Senator Marco Rubio. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
During one of the debates Senator Ted Cruz started talking in very plain English about the exact capabilities of law enforcement under a recently passed bill. The type of information that in the wake of the Snowden leaks had courts across the country agreeing that the average US Citizen should have been informed about. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Senator Rubio broke in and said something about not discussing National Security in front of 15 million viewers... the exact same viewers that those National Security and Law Enforcement issues <i style="font-weight: bold;">needed to be talked about to in plain English</i>. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
That started the scales tipping. The scales took another tumble when the subject of Encryption came up in a debate. As best as I can determine Ted Cruz is at least aware of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerckhoffs%27s_principle">Kerckhoffs's Principle</a>; or is knowledgeable enough of Open-Source development practices to realize that security professionals would treat any US Backdoor into any encryption as a front-door for every criminal on the planet; and simply write their own code; or leverage an audited Open-Source project with code not necessarily hosted within the confines of the US Borders. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The event that wiped Senator Rubio from consideration; was the event that left Senator Ted Cruz as somebody I could support. That event was Senator Rubio up on a debate stage saying he would prosecute Snowden as a criminal while Senator Cruz would welcome Snowden home as a Patriot.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>Snowden is a Patriot</b>.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I've been over all of the evidence to date and I can find nothing that indicates that Snowden preformed his leaks with criminal intent. I genuinely believe he was somebody in a position who saw something atrocious going on... and could not let his country suffer under the Intelligence State that the Obama Administration had wrung into existence. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Rubio's declaration on Snowden was not the clincher that made me state <b>I Choose Cruz</b>... but the impetus that drove me to look far more closely at Senator Cruz's policies, plans, and record. The same record, policies, and plans... that carried Senator Cruz into the top spot of the Iowa Caucus... are what makes me believe that Senator Cruz is the best candidate the GOP has to offer. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Putting the cartoonish hyperbole, quote/unquote's, theatrics, metaphors, and snide snarky shots to one side; Senator Cruz has an uphill fight. His record is not one that resonates with much of the Senior Leadership of the Republican Party. It is my opinion that anything short of an overwhelming majority of US Voters all saying <b>We Choose Cruz</b> could result in a repeat of the 2015 political tragedy. The freshmen Congressional Representatives and Senators; the new blood swept into office to fulfill a mandate... could find themselves not fighting against the remnants of what was once called the Democratic National Committee. Rather they could find themselves fighting the Senior Members of the GOP... who are just as responsible for the mess the Obama Administration created.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
So this is me. Je Saist. Je Zerias. The One Grumpy Bunny. The Eye of the Hurricane, Insanity Unchained and Chaos Purified. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
With one message. One simple message.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
If you are an American Citizen over the age of 18: </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b><i><br /></i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">You need to get off your butt, get registered to vote; and go vote Ted Cruz into the US Presidential Office in an Avalanche that would make the Swiss Alps Jealous. </span></i></b></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16837441025951698498noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4202507793705383029.post-49057161507551180912015-02-01T01:01:00.000-08:002015-02-01T01:01:14.523-08:00Repealing Obamacare: mind the cross-purposes talk<div class="tr_bq">
Pardon me while I brush away some dust. This is going to be better done here rather on than on G+ as I intend to toss a print-version at some of the politicians who can't be bothered to check their G+ notifications... or set up a G+ account. </div>
<br />
The short version of events is as follows: The Republican led congress has called for a vote to defund, dismantle, and generally repeal the quote/unquote <i>Affordable Care Act</i>.<br />
<br />
Mr. Obama has in turn stated that he will veto <b>any</b> attempt to undo the ongoing disaster known as <i>ObamaCare</i>. Mr. Obama also has the support, or so he thinks, of his political constituents.<br />
<br />
The Republican Party is confident that currently elected Democrats will have in mind the significant losses to seats in the House of Representatives, Senate, and Gubernatorial positions. Strategically there is no question that supporting the <i>Affordable Care Act</i> has permanently ended the political careers of many card-carrying Democrat National Party Members. There is a strong expectation that Democrats who have any expectation of ever holding any political power again will break ranks and vote to pass the legislation ending the <i>Affordable Care Act. </i>There is the stronger expectation that should Mr. Obama enact his threatened veto; those same Democrats will likely choose to make history and save their political futures by voting to over-ride Mr. Obama's Veto.<br />
<i><br /></i>
In attempting to stop what is perhaps now a reversal in progress on par with the <i>Repeal of Prohibition</i>, it is worth keeping in mind that Mr. Obama, his party constituents, and members of the paid broadcast and print media are engaged in deliberately talking at cross-purposes to the Republican Party and the United States of America as a whole. Those aligned with Mr. Obama accomplish this cross-purpose talk with a single question:<br />
<br />
<i>What do the (Republicans) intend to replace the Affordable Care Act with?</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
This is a <i>Mugs Question</i> that opens into a <i>Mugs Game</i>. Mr. Obama and those aligned with his political ideals will accept nothing outside of a <i>"Nanny-State / Single-Payer</i>" insurance system. As American's have learned from <a href="http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/3967109839001/gruber-calls-the-american-voter-stupid-again/">Mr. Gruber</a>; <i><b>Such a System Was Never Economically Viable To Begin With.</b></i><br />
<b><i><br /></i></b>
To be blunt the economic non-viability of the <i>Affordable Care Act</i> was fairly obvious even for those with zero experience in any college level; or for that matter grade-school level; economics course. What it comes down to is <i>"How Does Insurance Work?"</i><br />
<br />
Insurance companies such as <i>StateFarm</i>, <i>Nationwide</i>, <i>Progressive</i>, <i>Allstate, and Geiko</i> all have a fairly simply business model. Those covered under an insurance policy deposit a comparatively small amount of their financial resources in a series of payments over time into the Insurance Company's <i>Bank</i>. The word "<i>Bank"</i> refers to the total collected amount of financial resources the Insurance Company has; not to a specific banking institution.<br />
<br />
The Insurance Company adjusts the amount of financial resources expected to be deposited from any single covered entity against the <b>Risk(s) </b>that the covered entity will have to withdraw from the Insurance Company's <i>Bank</i>. The greater risks that any single entity represents requires a larger financial resource to be deposited. Case in point: an automobile driver with multiple legal violations will be considered a <i>"High Risk"</i> to the Insurance Company's <i>"Bank." </i>As such an automobile driver with multiple infractions on their license will be expected to deposit a significantly higher financial resource.<br />
<br />
The Insurance Company Business Model relies on a greater number of covered entities <b>contributing</b> greater financial resources to the <i>Bank</i> than the number of covered entities <b>withdrawing</b> financial resources from the <i>Bank</i>. Which in-turn creates the infamous <i>Insurance Adjuster</i> archetype; an individual who is responsible for minimizing the amount of financial resources that have to be withdrawn from the <i>Bank. </i>Once again Auto-Insurance is a standout example where an insurance company might cover repairs at one auto-shop rather than another because the financial resource costs for labor and equipment costs are lower.<br />
<i><br /></i>
The Insurance Company Business Model <b>ALSO</b> relies on an almost entirely voluntary client base. Even the United State's mandatory <i>Auto Insurance</i> provisions require that a US Citizen actually own an automobile that is driven on an automotive infrastructure maintained using Taxpayer funds. In other words: in the US a driver has to have automotive insurance if they take their vehicle on public roads. The need to rely on a voluntary client base directly leads to competition between insurance companies; which in turn helps lead to lowering the financial costs for any single covered entity who might get a better deal with a competitor.<br />
<i><br /></i>
Mr. Obama's <i>Affordable Care Act </i>outright ignored many of the fundamentals of the <i>Insurance Company Business Model</i>. At the very least the <i>Affordable Care Act</i> attempts to make coverage by an Insurance Company mandatory. Those who cannot afford a viable third party Insurance Company must be covered by a Taxpayer Sponsored Insurance Company; which automatically invalidates any up-ward spiral of expected behavior caused by competition. Rather than making health-insurance easier to access; this directly causes a drastic decrease in customer-service and let's third party entities attach booster rocket's to their financial resource premium. What's a potential client going to do? Pay-up for the increased costs on third party plan? Pay for their own coverage and the coverage for other s in taxes? Not pay anything at all? Making insurance coverage mandatory was never a viable solution.<br />
<br />
Mr. Obama's <i>Affordable Care Act</i> also places more power in the hands of the <i>Insurance Adjuster Archetype</i>. I myself have run into an issue with established entities like <i>Blue Cross/Blue Shield</i> in Georgia where a panel within the insurance company made a ruling on medical coverage, when no person on that panel was even remotely qualified to make any kind of ruling in regards to the medical issue at hand <i>(neurosurgery)</i>. There is no getting around the fact that Medical Decisions absolutely have to be made by a Competent and Qualified Doctor; not by an insurance company employee using WebMD or Wikipedia. This is not a fact that is up for argument or debate.<br />
<br />
Mr. Obama's <i>Affordable Care Act</i> further ignored the principles for an actual Insurance Company Business Model that a covered entity's financial deposits are adjusted not only against the risks that financial resources will have to be discharged for that covered entity; but also against the risks of how much any single discharge could cost. In the case of Health Insurance there is no question that financial resources will have to be discharged. As will shortly be addressed; the US health care system was already rife with doctors charging patients leveraging financial cash one amount; yet charging insurance companies significantly greater financial resource amounts with the expectation that the actual amount would be haggled down to somewhere above a financial cash transaction. Mr. Obama's <i>Affordable Care Act</i> did absolutely nothing to address the risks on either side of the Insurance Company Business Model. <br />
<br />
The point to be made then is this. The Republican Party does not have any legislation in mind to <b><i>replace</i> </b>the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act was never affordable and never did anything to actually lower the costs of medicine in the United States. To quote some quick-shots from myself on G+ in October 2013: <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/117255203942825212306/posts/HVZo85um87R">https://plus.google.com/u/0/117255203942825212306/posts/HVZo85um87R</a><br />
<br />
<blockquote>
The Affordable Care Act doesn't actually do anything to stop Doctor's Offices from charging insurance an inflated figure and then haggling down; while charging cash patients far less money. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
The Affordable Care Act doesn't actually do anything to lessen the amount of insurance paperwork any single Doctor's office has to deal with. Rather, according to the Doctor's I try and stay in contact with, their paperwork and filing needs will increase.<br />The Affordable Care Act doesn't actually do anything to lower or establish tax exemptions on medicines. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
The Affordable Care Act doesn't actually do anything to stop brand-name drug developers from overpricing their drugs; and then using the trade system as a battering ram to prevent generic drugs sold at affordable prices from making it hands into patients. As a personal example: I suffer from high blood pressure. The best drug combination, to date that works with my body chemistry is a Bystolic / Hyzaar combination. While Hyzaar has a generic available, as this posting Bystolic does not. The practical result for me is that I currently make do with an Atenolol / Lisinopril combination that is nowhere near as effective; but is affordable. The Affordable Care Act does nothing to address the market abuses of the pharmaceutical companies; and that in turn has a direct effect on the downstream costs of health care. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
The Affordable Care Act doesn't actually do anything to get more Doctors into Practice. There is a shortage of both Doctors and Nurses within the United States. The Affordable Care Act does nothing to reduce the amount of financial and legal risk that is associated with practicing medicine; nor does the legislation reduce or simplify the costs or processes in training to become a Doctor or a Nurse. The practical result is that the Affordable Care Act does absolutely nothing to address the practical shortage of people who are qualified and trained to serve in medical professions. As such Doctors, and by extension nurses, continue to be forced to turn the costs of their education back onto their clients, e.g. the patients, which continues to escalate health care costs.</blockquote>
Any <b>New</b> legislation from the Republican Party in regards to health-care will, in all likelihood, actually try to the address the actual cost issues at hand. Just passing a law stating that Doctors must charge cash-resource and insurance-covered patients the same exact financial resources would eliminate a staggering portion of the price-gouging that occurs and <b>crater</b> Health-Care costs almost overnight. That being said since Health-Insurance generally carries a labor overhead on the part of the Doctor a bill that allows Doctors to charge Insurance Companies a specified percentage over cash-resource would be more likely to pass with bipartisan support.<br />
<br />
In the same way; legislation that targets the market abuses of pharmaceutical organizations would likewise have a direct effect on health-costs. A common argument here is that a prevalence of generic products would drive the billion-dollar pharmaceutical companies out of business. I'm not convinced. Speaking for myself I'd happily pay out for the brand name <i>Bystolic / Hyzaar</i> if the brand-name versions resource cost was within a percentage'd delta of a generic version rather than a logarithmic'd delta. Case in point: Each day millions of consumers around the world happily pay for brand name medicines like <i>PeptoBismol</i>, <i>Advil</i>, or <i>Bayers Aspirin; </i>despite vendors like Wal-Mart and CVS offering store-branded generic versions for less financial resources.<br />
<br />
Understanding that the issues with Health Care in the United States are not, and cannot, be solved with legislation focused around quote/unquote <i>Health Care Exchanges</i> and Insurance Coverage is one of the first steps towards fixing Health Care not just in the US, but in other nations.<br />
<br />
As an ending note an alert reader might have noticed that a specific form of addressing a specific person was avoided in the entirety of this posting. To be blunt: When a person in an politically elected office demonstrates complete and absolute utter incompetence in that office; that person forfeits any and all rights to the protections and benefits offered of that office; including but not limited to the expectation to be addressed by the title that office would normally grant.<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16837441025951698498noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4202507793705383029.post-73367675770620287562012-09-12T04:11:00.001-07:002012-09-12T04:11:45.494-07:00Shadow Test #4Experimenting with labeling and email sharing. Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08951185953504736035noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4202507793705383029.post-69356007583931524092012-09-12T03:48:00.001-07:002012-09-12T03:48:59.587-07:00Shadow Test #3Round 3: If this works, a post from my main account should be pushed to zerias.blogspot.com and the GNiE G+ feed.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16837441025951698498noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4202507793705383029.post-32086765843008466092012-09-12T03:44:00.002-07:002012-09-12T03:44:06.218-07:00Shadow Account TestIf this works properly... This post on zerias.blogspot.com should be automagically pushed to the GNiE G+ feed. Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08951185953504736035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4202507793705383029.post-16174156539755072102012-07-07T21:33:00.003-07:002012-07-07T21:56:21.956-07:00Digital Rights: Removed and RegainedHere is an interesting question for you: What is the difference between the popular anti-cheat program <a href="http://www.evenbalance.com/index.php">PunkBuster</a> and malicious root-kits like <a href="http://support.microsoft.com/kb/978126">Microsoft ZDPP</a>, <a href="http://www.tagesprotection.com/">Tages</a>, or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SecuROM">SecuROM</a>?<br><br>On the surface all of the programs have the same basic function. <span style="font-weight: bold;">That function is to implement a software lock on a program</span>. <br><br>This software lock prevents the users of that program from carrying out certain actions; and at extreme ends can prevent users from the utilization of the program. Despite these similarities <span style="font-style: italic;">Punkbuster</span> is welcomed in gaming communities, while the other utilities are openly reviled. <br><br>The impetus for this thought was a repetition of an oft-used claim I saw on the Sega Forums. Somebody made the comment that the application in question would not ever be on /Linux. This statement was based on that application's usage of <a href="http://global.nprotect.com/product/gg.php">NProtect's GameGuard</a>, and the quote/unquote following statement: <span style="font-weight: bold;">"which goes against the general use policies of linux."</span><br><br>The reasoning behind the statement took me aback. For starters, there are no such general use policies for /Linux systems. Secondly, I am very familiar with the GameGuard program. It is a competitor to PunkBuster, and as far as I am aware, not a malicious rootkit or a Digital-Rights-reMoval application. In my mind there is a clear difference between useful utilities that prevent players from hacking games, malicious DRM rootkits, and benign DRM Services. <br><br><big><span style="font-weight: bold;">The Lock-Out Implementations</span></big><br><ul><li>Anti-Hacking: <span style="font-style: italic;">Punkbuster, GameGuard, Valve.Anti.Cheat</span> </li></ul><div style="margin-left: 80px;">Tools like this prevent the computer user from breaking an application and using that break to affect other players in a networked environment. These tools generally do not prevent modifications to the program itself, the digital-lock is run as a process, and are generally optional to utilize. The person hosting the network-server must enable the anti-hacking tool, and the person launching the client-application must agree to use that anti-hacking tool.<br></div><ul><li>DRM Malicious Rootkits: <span style="font-style: italic;">SecuROM</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">Tages</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">ZDPP</span></li></ul><div style="margin-left: 80px;">Rootkits like these prevent the user from accessing the application itself, and the digital-lock is generally implemented on a system-wide level rather than a process-level. The result is that these rootkits take away control of the application itself from the user, and can result in permanent system-level damage. Most of these rootkits have limited activations or installations which cannot be renewed or extended, thus forcing the purchaser to repurchase the software if they want to continue to use the software they already purchased. <br></div><ul><li>DRM Benign Single Sign On Services: <span style="font-style: italic;">Desura</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">Valve.Steam</span></li></ul><div style="margin-left: 80px;">Services like these require an internet connection in order to authenticate ownership of the application. Applications are stored in a defined container, but users are largely not restricted from modifying stored applications. The Digital-Lock is often implemented as a process. These services often include additional features such as un-attended installations, automatic-updating, data-file synchronizing, cloud-storage utilities, and other features such as storefronts or library management. <br><br>The drawback to Single-Sign-On systems is that they do not address the offline-user. Not to put too fine a point in it, but what was wrong with entering a unique-CD-key code?<br></div><br>To me these differences are as clear as the difference between day and night. What is the perspective from somebody who is not as technically inclined as I am? Are these programs really all that different? <br><br>What about from a moral or ethical standpoint. Is it ethical to lock down computer software to prevent access or modification? Is that a morally right thing to do? For me the determination comes down to a very specific litmus test:<br><ul><li>Is the lockout going to beneficially affect somebody else's application experience?</li><li>Is the lockout going to negatively affect your personal application experience?</li><li>Is the lockout intended to prevent theft of the application?</li></ul>These three questions pretty much cover the litmus test for applications that implement a software lock out. <br><br>Yes, it is morally or ethically correct to lockout software if that lockout prevents a negative experience for somebody else. This would be the anti-hack tools such as PunkBuster and GameGuard. They ensure that people who are playing games in a networked environment are playing in a fair environment. Such lock-outs are already supported within the /Linux software ecosystem. Technologies such as <span style="font-style: italic;">Punkbuster</span> have native IA32 and x86-64 libraries. Strangely, the aforementioned <span style="font-style: italic;">GameGuard</span> does not advertise GNU/Linux support, even though I am led to believe that <span style="font-style: italic;">GameGuard</span> has at least a native x86-64 client available upon request in order to compete with <span style="font-style: italic;">Punkbuster</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">Valve.Anti.Cheat</span>.<br><br>No, it is not morally or ethically correct for lockout software to prevent you from using the software.<span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>This would be the malicious rootkits that can destroy your operating system or force you to have to re-purchase a software license. This would also include always on 24/7 dial-home services for non-internet-only games. <br><br>It is morally and ethically permissible to implement a software lock to prevent theft. However, in order for this type of lock to be morally and ethically acceptable, the lockout needs to be non-destructive and flexible. Single-Sign-On services are an acceptable compromise that give content generators a level of theft-protection while not threatening the users-computing environment. <br><br><big><span style="font-weight: bold;">The /Linux Perception</span></big><br><br>With the above concepts in mind, that there are notable differences in software locks, and notable differences in what makes those lockouts acceptable or unacceptable, how do this relate to /Linux? How do we explain to somebody who is unfamiliar with the /Linux software ecosystem that software-lockouts are permissible? How do we explain that there are no such things as <span style="font-style: italic;">usage policies</span>?<br><br>The answers to these questions can be complicated. Over the years an extensive amount of <span style="font-style: italic;">Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt</span> has been generated on the subjects of the /Linux kernel, the GNU Operating System, third party applications, licenses, and many other aspects of the overall /Linux software ecosystem. A very recent case in point is the <a href="http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/whitepaper-web">Free Software Foundation call-out</a> on Canonical over the usage of private keys and Grub2. <span style="font-style: italic;"></span><br><br>Many computer users seem to be under the impression that proprietary programs cannot be run on /Linux systems, or that technologies that implement a software-lock cannot be run on /Linux due to some non-existent policy. Most think this either due to the repetition of <span style="font-style: italic;">F.U.D. </span>from sources such as Microsoft, or just general confusion from lack of education. Before going further it would probably be a good idea to just clarify the relationships between the Kernel, Operating System, and Applications. To do that I'll use some breakdowns for Android/Linux and for an Embedded GNU/Linux:<br><br><a href="http://source.android.com/tech/security/images/image00.png"><img style="border: 2px solid ; width: 400px; height: 280px;" alt="" src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-wBFUgfq77o8/T_i7LZZmhlI/AAAAAAAAN5I/wvyCquBGSFk/s400/breakdown-android-chart.png"></a> <a href="http://www.pengutronix.de/images/block-diagram-software-stack.png"><img style="border: 2px solid ; width: 400px; height: 291px;" alt="" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-XUyWMF7eASU/T_i7LvvYKvI/AAAAAAAAN5M/lBserLRutT0/s400/breakdown-gnu-chart.png"></a><br><br>In these pictures we can clearly see the drill down of the components working with each other. Applications talk to the API's and Libraries in the Operating System. It is those API's and Libraries in the Operating system itself that turn around and talk to the hardware devices exposed by the kernel. Incidentally, this layout is why you have <span style="font-weight: bold;">*updates*</span> for drivers, libraries, and API's. Errors or inefficiencies of code in these components can affect the entire operating system due to their low-system-level. <br><br>This breakdown is also explains why applications compiled for Android+Chromium are not necessarily compatible with applications compiled for GNU and vice-versa. While the underlying kernel itself may be the same, applications generally talk to the API's and Libraries in the Operating System rather than the kernel itself. This is the <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Important Bit</span></span> to remember. <br><br>Applications that run on GNU/Linux operating systems generally access the GNU libraries, which are released under the Lesser GNU Public License. Let me quote something from 2004 written by the FSF: <a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html">http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html</a><br><br><div style="margin-left: 40px;"><span style="font-style: italic;">FSF's position has remained constant throughout: the LGPL works as intended with all known programming languages, including Java. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Applications which link to LGPL libraries need not be released under the LGPL.</span> Applications need only follow the requirements in section 6 of the LGPL: <span style="font-weight: bold;">allow new versions of the library to be linked with the application; and allow reverse engineering to debug this.</span></span><br></div><br>Note two of the salient, e.g. bolded, points made by the Free Software Foundation. Any and all applications can access the GNU libraries, regardless of license, financial cost, or any other factors. The only restrictions is that the author of that application cannot restrict reverse engineering of their product for the purpose of debugging library updates. Again this was written in 2004 and some elements of the LGPL have been updated or clarified in the LGPL Version 3.<br><br>There is another restriction to the LGPL, and it is one Google brings up here: <a href="http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html">http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html</a>,<br><br><div style="margin-left: 40px;"><span style="font-style: italic;">LGPL (in simplified terms) requires either: shipping of source to the application; a written offer for source; or linking the LGPL-ed library dynamically and allowing users to manually upgrade or replace the library.</span><br></div><br>Many users and developers get hung up on the concept of <span style="font-weight: bold;">OR</span><span style="font-style: italic;">, </span>and for some reason or another believe that using the LGPL GNU Libraries requires releasing the source code that calls upon those libraries. There are some valid concerns here for some vendors since dynamic software linking can be an issue on embedded platforms such as cellphones and Tablets. In such constrained software environments the operating system is distributed as a static-image. Historically most constrained-computing devices; which for point's sake is defined as almost every single electronic device with an embedded operating system; are never updated after they are released. This is one of the reasons phone vendors such as AT&T struggle to get Android Operating System updates out in something that does not resemble a geological time scale. AT&T has not yet adjusted to users not only wanting, but demanding and expecting Operating System updates on an embedded device as part of the service plan. <br><br>In terms of desktop usage, this is not really a problem. Although many users and developers might be unfamiliar with the /Linux software ecosystem, they should be familiar with the Microsoft Windows distribution method. Microsoft generally presses out a static disc image for their Windows Operating System, and it is this image that is distributed to end users and vendors. The end-users and vendors are responsible for ensuring that the static-image that was distributed is then updated with the latest sets of software patches. This is a very normal operating procedure for users of desktop computers.<br><br>Most GNU/Linux work in much the same way. The user installs the operating system, then pulls updates down for the operating system. Developers writing for GNU/Linux systems thus have to determine whether or not they want to statically-link their library files for distribution, or dynamically link the library files and simply use those provided by the operating system. Dynamically linked applications are generally preferred since users can have a wide range of GNU libraries in use and dynamic linking is the only <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">sane</span></span> way to distribute applications. <br><br>To reiterate, the dynamic linking restriction in place of source code does not, in any way shape or form, concept or idea, particle or boson, prevent the distribution of a proprietary application with an attached financial cost from using the GNU Libraries. <br> <br><big><span style="font-weight: bold;">What about the Kernel?</span></big><br><br><span style="font-style: italic;"></span>So then, if there is nothing to prevent proprietary programs from running natively on /Linux systems, what about the <a href="http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/technical-advisory-board-tab/kerneldriverstatement">Linux Foundation's call out of Nvidia for it's proprietary drivers in 2008</a>? <br><br>Again, two separate things here. The /Linux kernel is just that, a <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">KERNEL</span></span>. The /Linux kernel is not an operating system. For the /Linux kernel proprietary drivers are a nightmare, which is why there are only two real proprietary drivers of note: Nvidia-GLX and AMD Fglrx. <a href="http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/announcements/2012/04/linux-foundation-releases-annual-linux-development-report">Linux kernel development</a> occurs almost too fast to really support an out-of-tree driver API. This rapid pace of technology is one of the reasons AMD has said they'll be opening up <a href="http://www.slideshare.net/hsafoundation/afds2012-the-programmers-guide-to-a-universe-of-possibility-heterogeneous-system-architecture">Catalyst for the HSA Foundation (slide 30)</a>. <br><br>It is important to separate the <span style="font-weight: bold;">Kernel</span> from the <span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Operating System</span></span>. Yes, the /Linux Kernel developers have a very vocal policy against software lockouts and proprietary licenses. The policy of the /Linux Kernel developers only applies to the /Linux kernel, not to the Operating System. Case in point, the Android+Chromium operating system(s) also use the /Linux kernel, but because they are not widely associated with GNU/Linux and the associated <i>"viral"</i> GNU Public Licenses, they do not suffer from the perception that there is a policy against software lockouts or proprietary licensed software.<br><br><big><span style="font-weight: bold;">Distributing Digital Rights reMoval software</span></big><br><br>In theory then, could malicious rootkits under proprietary license like SecuROM or Tages be brought to the GNU/Linux platform? Assuming that the native-client applications were dynamically linked to the GNU Libraries, then yes. <br><br>Could those applications be distributed? If the license allows for the unencumbered redistribution of the application, then yes. <br><br>Would those programs be distributed? This is the better question to ask. One of the signature problems of commercial /Linux support is actually getting applications into the hands of downstream users. Many Windows users may be unfamiliar with general GNU/Linux distribution methods, but are probably familiar now with digital distribution through applications like <span style="font-style: italic;">Valve.Steam</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">Google Play</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">Itunes App Store</span>, or the <span style="font-style: italic;">Amazon App store</span>. These digital distribution stores are largely modeled after networked software storage systems developed for GNU/Linux known as package repositories. <span style="font-style: italic;">Valve.Steam</span>, for example, is often referred to as <span style="font-style: italic;">"Apt for Windows"</span> given the multiple similarities to the <a href="http://wiki.debian.org/Apt/">Debian Apt</a> system. <br><br>Many of the applications released into the /Linux software ecosystem are released under open-source licenses with unencumbered distributions. This allows the programs to leverage the networked system package repositories for storage and distribution. Programs with proprietary licenses can still be distributed through package repositories. Case in point, Debian designates <a href="http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages">proprietary licensed applications as non-free</a> and makes them available, although as a separate option from the main distribution.<br><br>There is a difference between an application that can be added to a repository, and one that will be added. Most package repositories tend to be guarded with multiple levels of security. For example, becoming a <a href="http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMaintainer">Debian Maintainer</a> requires jumping through lots of hoops including physically meeting with another maintainer. Adding a deliberately malicious package would destroy the trust the downstream users have with the maintainers of the repository. Offhand, I think this might be where the concept that a universal policy against software lockouts came from. <br><br>There is a drastic difference between a Repository Maintainer protecting downstream users from a malicious application, and a policy against software lockouts. One does not beget the other. <br><br><big><span style="font-weight: bold;">Where do we go from here?</span></big><br><br>The /Linux software ecosystem continues to grow across both GNU/Linux and Android+Chromium/Linux. Commercial vendors who have long since ignored the /Linux software ecosystem are slowly being forced into adopting platform neutral development techniques. In all fairness the platform neutral approach has also been helped by deliberate breaks in Microsoft's Windows Operating systems. For many developers the only way to target Windows Xp, Windows 7, and Windows 8 for application deployment is to adopt a platform-neutral development strategy such adopting graphics technologies like OpenGL over DirectX. <br><br>From my perspective the turn-about has been both hilarious and painful to watch. Companies like Valve and Unigine tend to approach /Linux, and for that matter platform-neutral development and distribution as a market reality rather than a one-off experiment. Companies like Electronics Arts tend to approach /Linux development and distribution as an experiment, something that can be abandoned if things do not go completely right. Companies like Activision will happily use /Linux for servers, but have no idea what to do with the desktop /Linux market other than ban players from Diablo III who were not using Windows. <br><br>With non-native repository solutions such as <span style="font-style: italic;">Valve.Steam</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">Desura</span> vendors now have an external solution to distribute their native-client protected applications to downstream users within the /Linux Software ecosystem. Does this mean that we will see the rise of malicious software distribution through <span style="font-style: italic;">Valve.Steam</span> or <span style="font-style: italic;">Desura</span>? <br><br>My guess is an <span style="font-style: italic;">"unlikely no."</span> There are multiple reasons for this, starting with the simple fact that most malicious software lock-outs never really worked to begin with. Anti-consumers such as pirates were not halted by malicious roots such as SecuROM, Tages, or ZDPP. The malicious rootkits only impacted legitimate users. <br><br>Then there is the network-connection question. Some of the vendors I've talked with over the years admitted that they shipped a malicious rootkit instead of a Single-Sign-On service for the sole reason that they wanted to prevent application theft from an offline user. The computing market has changed greatly in the past several years as Internet Access has become almost ubiquitous. While it might be possible that there are still Windows users who are buying modern-day application packages with no intention of ever connecting to the Internet, I think it would be a bit of a stretch to find a /Linux user with disposable income looking to buy a modern-day application package with no internet access. I think application vendors could probably be assured that solely distributing their applications through a Single-Sign-On service on GNU/Linux such as <span style="font-style: italic;">Valve.Steam</span> or <span style="font-style: italic;">Desura</span> would not limit or hamper potential sale opportunities. <br><br>The resistance to pushing commercial released consumer applications into the /Linux software ecosystem is not going to go away overnight. Vendors and consumers need to be educated on what the Open-Source licenses really say, and years of Reaper Indoctrination say Shepard is alive, I mean, years of Microsoft's F.U.D. flinging are going to be difficult to counter. We will continue to see vendors decline to release their applications into the GNU/Linux ecosystem due to concerns over licensing, library linking, or imagined policies, regardless of what the facts actually are.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08951185953504736035noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4202507793705383029.post-63784629075572326382012-05-16T21:30:00.001-07:002012-05-17T00:16:15.160-07:00Android CentralizationI normally don't repost comments I've made in other people's G+ streams. Well, this time I am, by collecting some of the comments together and expanding upon them.<br><br>One of the murmurs going around tech circles right now is an apparent push from <a href="http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/google-to-centralize-android-development-and-sales/11003">Google to centralize Android/Linux distribution</a>. The objective on Google's part is to get Android/Linux updates into the hands of users. Case in point the latest version of Android/Linux is the 4 to 5 month old <span style="font-style: italic;">Ice Cream Sandwich 4.0</span> release. However, Android phones are still shipping with the literal years old Android <span style="font-style: italic;">Gingerbread 2.x</span> release, and many popular Android/Linux phones like the Galaxy S II still haven't been updated despite carrier promises <span style="font-style: italic;">(AT&T)</span> to get their act together.<br><br>The largest issue caused by inability of carriers to get their acts together and get updates out to device owners is not application incompatibility, despite what some reports, and programmers for that matter, would have you believe. The actual <a href="http://developer.android.com/guide/appendix/api-levels.html">Android Application Programming Interfaces</a> are very clearly defined and relatively stable between releases. The reference case in point here could be any long standing RPM or Debian based GNU/Linux distribution. Despite a wide variety of GNU/Debian operating system environments and /Linux kernels, you can generally maintain program compatibility if you target the published /Linux API's. Case in point, I can still run games like <span style="font-style: italic;">UT'99</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">Doom3</span> that haven't had any effective updates to the binary executables in years. <br><br>From what I can tell from the Android/Linux documentation Google wasn't too particularly worried about Operating System fragmentation since they could implement API fallbacks for deprecated API features. In practice the program compatibility question does become complicated. The level of control given to vendors means that API fallbacks may not be exposed on any single Android/Linux device a user may actually have in their hand. There also can be other vendor-caused issues, such as <span style="font-style: italic;">"baked-in</span>" shovelware like Facebook.<br><br>In my opinion the largest of these vendor-cause issues is the exposure of users to security threats. As Android/Linux devices become more widespread they become a more desirable target for malicious software and targeted attacks. It is my opinion that too many security choices are left in the hands of the phone carriers, many of whom have a long history of proving they have no business participating in software distribution or management. <br><br>Centralizing Android distribution allows Google to force the software-compatibility and security issues. This proposed centralization is very similar to the methods used by Apple in regards to the Iphone, which often raises the question of why it took Google so long to mimic Apple's successful software management strategy. My opinion here is that the recent history is being re-written by the present events. <br><br>Google publicly launched the <span style="font-style: italic;">Open Handset Alliance</span> in <a href="http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/press_110507.html">November of 2007</a>. When Google started the Open Handset Alliance it, as in Google, was trying to break into the smartphone market. The Android/Linux platform was unproven, and for that matter, unwanted. In 2007 there was active market competition from not just Apple's Iphone, but also from Palm and RIM. Case in point 2007 <a href="http://www.macworld.com/article/1058677/palm.html">Palm was both profitable</a> and already talking about their <a href="http://blog.palm.com/palm/2007/09/a-message-to-pa.html">next generation software platform</a>. Granted 2007 was also when <a href="http://www.shacknews.com/chatty?id=24854573#itemanchor_24854573">RIM thought the Iphone was a wormhole product</a>. Just getting the a foothold against the established players in the smartphone meant Google had to take a fundamentally different approach than Apple, which meant allowing the decentralization of updates and allowing phone vendors to do their own things.<br><br>Fast forward to today and the market itself has changed. Former smartphone powerhouses Palm and RIM have been mismanaged into irrelevance. One of the strongest players in the dumbphone market, Nokia, suffered not only from internal mismanagement that encouraged <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/10/nokia_ui_saga/page2.html">in-house competitions to ludicrous levels</a> <span style="font-style: italic;">(Symbian, /Linux, and QT)</span>; they also suffered from external mismanagement <span style="font-style: italic;">(Microsoft, Elop, and Windows Phone)</span>. Also, yes, I know I just linked to an article written by Andrew Orlowski. As far as I can tell that article is actually accurate. Yes. I checked. Multiple times. <br><br>Anyways, the very competitors that forced Google to make concessions to get the OHA rolling to begin with, are, as far as the market is concerned, gone. <br><br>There are other factors to consider, such as the emergence of malicious software that attacks mobile devices, and then the whole updating question. Quite frankly Apple pioneered the entire concept of a smart-device getting an operating system and functionality upgrade, something Palm and RIM users had always equated to <span style="font-style: italic;">"spend more money on a new device."</span> <br><br>Another unmentioned factor here is Kaz Hirai's push on Android through Sony. Sony <span style="font-weight: bold;">needs</span> Android centralized in order for Sony's content-driven Playstation Suite plans to actually work. I'm not too terribly interested in going into <span style="font-weight: bold;">why</span> Sony needs a centralized Android since that is it's own story, and will likely be posted on GNiE. <br><br>Additionally there is the whole legal quagmire with design patents, software patents, copyrighted API's, and so on and so forth. Google's ongoing triumph against Oracle in a courtroom probably is the straw that broke some of the involved camel's backs.<br><br>From an outsiders standpoint I think Google only now has the market muscle to actually push centralization of Android Distribution onto unwilling carriers. From the user's perspective the hopeful outcome is that devices running Android/Linux will be updated within a reasonable amount of time, say a couple of weeks if not days, from the launch of new software versions. I'm not sure I can imagine what the hardware vendors perspective is, but the loss of software competitors means they'll just have to focus on making better hardware. I can imagine what the carriers perspective is right now, Google's taking away their baked-in cash-cow shovelware deals and giving users back their devices. I think AT&T is <span style="font-weight: bold;">not</span> going to be happy about this.<br><br>And before you ask, I'm singling out AT&T since the Samsung Galaxy II S was flagged for <span style="font-style: italic;">ICS 4.0</span>, and as far as my friends tell me, it's still <span style="font-weight: bold;">Absent without explanation</span>.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08951185953504736035noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4202507793705383029.post-7338822013749268832012-05-12T15:14:00.000-07:002013-03-18T21:10:40.829-07:00Homosexuals: It was never about Rights.Okay, I've had enough. I think the breaking point for me was somebody who declared that Homosexuals being unable to marry was equivalent to the <span style="font-style: italic;">"Separate But Equal"</span> doctrine. That's a load of horse hockey, and it's probably about time somebody shut the entire concept down. Might as well be me. <br />
<br />
Thing is there has been a dramatic push by supporters of the Homosexual Agenda and their counterparts from the Liberal Democrats to compare the lack of legal right for Homosexuals to marry to various legitimate civil rights issues in the past. Comparisons can involve the female right to vote and the civil rights of non-white US citizens. The Homosexuals and their supporters claim that they are being discriminated against. Okay, so the first point of contention here is to define discrimination. Dictionary.com defines Discrimination as: <span style="font-weight: bold;">"treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit." </span>Let me phrase this in terms of plain English:<br />
<ul>
<li>If I were a business owner of a computer repair shop and I needed a new employee to repair computers it would <span style="font-weight: bold;">NOT</span> be discrimination for me to ignore applications who have no experience repairing computers. It would be discrimination if I were to discard an applicant with experience in repairing computers because they were Catholic. Their religious status makes no difference to the job.<br /> </li>
<li>If I were a business owner of a bakery and I needed a new baker it would <span style="font-weight: bold;">NOT</span> be discrimination for me to ignore applications who have no experience in baking. It would be discrimination if I were to discard an applicant with a Diploma in European Baking and Pastry because they were white. Their color makes no difference to the job.<br /> </li>
<li>To take this to the extreme, if I were a business owner of a car repair shop and I needed somebody with two hands to help with repairs it would <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">NOT</span> </span>be discrimination to turn down an applicant for that job who was missing an arm. It <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">would</span> </span>be discrimination for me to discard that application because he had a girlfriend. Their sexual status makes no difference to the job.<br /> </li>
</ul>
With the idea of discrimination defined and the concept framed in real world terms, what does this mean in regards to the Homosexual Agenda and it's supporters? How is the lack of legal recognition of marriage's between Homosexuals Discrimination? In order to answer this question we need to define <span style="font-weight: bold;">Marriage</span>. Dictionary.com defines Marriage as: <span style="font-weight: bold;">"the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."</span><br />
<br />
Next Question: Who defines the social institution?<br />
<ul>
<li>Is is the established central government? No. Governments typically establish Civil Unions: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union</a> </li>
<li>Is it a Church? Yes in part, most marriages are referred to as Holy Matrimony, and are performed under the authority of a priest.<br /> </li>
<li>Is it a religious Convention? Yes in part, the concept of marriage as Holy Matrimony was laid out within the books known as the <a href="http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm">Jewish Torah</a>, books that are accepted by Jewish, Christian, and Islamic religions.<br /> </li>
</ul>
This now poses the question: If a Government can recognize it's own form of a legal union without regard to a religious mandate, why does a Government need to recognize a Marriage? Let me phrase this question another way: <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">What is the point of Marriage?</span></span><br />
<ul>
<li>Is it love for your partner?</li>
<li>Is it to have kids?</li>
<li>Is it to save money?</li>
<li>Is it convenience? </li>
</ul>
Good questions, but what does Marriage do that a Civil Union does not do? Yes, this will be pertinent in a bit. Let me add another question right now: <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">What does the Government gain from recognizing a Civil Union or a Marriage?</span></span><br />
<br />
The short answer is this:<span style="font-style: italic;"> </span>From the Government's point of view the sole reason a Government needs to recognize the legal status of people living together is that it provides the Government with a concrete benefit. From the perspective of a Government the concept of Marriage has only one concrete benefit. That benefit is the production of more citizens. All of the fiscal benefits that <span style="font-style: italic;">Married Couples</span> get are designed to do one thing, and one thing only. <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Aid that couple in producing children</span></span>. <br />
<br />
Remember something I said years ago? That the Homosexual Agenda is just about money? Well, it's not, and I'll get to that in a second. Here though is one half the <span style="font-weight: bold;">crux</span> of the <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Homosexual Marriage</span></span> push. It is to award Homosexuals with the same financial benefits that Heterosexual couples are awarded. However, <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Homosexual Couples are physically incapable of fulfilling the Physical Requirements for those benefits</span>. <br /> <br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"></span></span></span></span>This goes back to what I opened with in terms of Discrimination. It is not discrimination to withhold or disallow a person from partaking in a specific job, benefit, event, or whatever, if they don't meet the requirements for that specific job, benefit, event, or whatever.<br />
<br />
The reality is this: <span style="font-weight: bold;">Homosexuals do not qualify for the Benefits of Marriage to a Government</span>. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Ergo it is not Discrimination to disallow Homosexuals Citizens the benefits that are granted to Heterosexual Citizens</span>.<br />
<br />
I suspect that these statements will produce lots of teeth gnashing and probably earn lots of vicious whining from people who hadn't actually thought this through. I'm not finished lobbing bricks through the glass houses though. Remember a question from just a couple lines ago? <span style="font-weight: bold;">What does Marriage do that Civil Union does not do?</span> Yes, let's bring that back up. What <span style="font-weight: bold;">DOES</span> a Marriage do that a Civil Union doesn't? <br />
<br />
Here's the short answer: a Marriage is generally established by a church or a religious body. A Civil Union is generally established by a government. This difference is the key point on why supporters of the Homosexual Agenda want <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Marriage Recognition</span></span>. <br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">What supporters of the Homosexual Agenda want is for the Government to tell the Church what the Church has to recognize.</span><br />
<br />
Subtle isn't it. The same group of people that howl and complain about <span style="font-style: italic;">Separation of Church and State</span>; the same people who have made it all but illegal for Priests and Pastors to even mention politics from the pulpit; the same people who howl about religious persecution; the same people who stamp their feet and point dramatically anytime it even looks like the <span style="font-style: italic;">"Church"</span> might have a modicum of influence on their lives; are trying to influence the <span style="font-style: italic;">"Church"</span> and interfere with matters of the <span style="font-style: italic;">"Church."</span><br />
<br />
In case you missed the point, this is the textbook definition of Hypocrisy and Double Standard. Supporters of the Homosexual Agenda and Liberal Democrats feel they are free to perform the exact same actions they declare nobody else can perform. <br />
<br />
To reiterate I expect that these statements will also generate a large amount of teeth gnashing and more whining from people who hate to be called out. <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"></span></span></span>Unfortunately for them, I'm not done. When looking at the cold hard logic behind the goals that supporters of the <span style="font-style: italic;">Homosexual Agenda</span> are trying to achieve, the question has to be raised; How did this ever become a big deal to begin with? Why have Homosexuals become some a large part of the perceived American Life?<br />
<br />
The roots to these questions are to be found in the so called <span style="font-style: italic;">Kinsey Reports</span>, which were two books published on sexual behavior. Many of the commonly accepted ratios for homosexual market penetration and demographics were taken from data provided by the Kinsey Reports. The problem here is that Kinsey Report were false, and were medically disproved. All of the figures and ratios developed by Alfred Kinsey were, in fact, fraudulent. For the record, Kinsey himself was a pedophile and is confirmed to have committed acts of sexual abuse. In most academic circles this would result in the immediate rejection of any data furnished or provided by a person who had committed such acts. <br />
<br />
One of the larger of the legacy problems here is the abject failure of the American Medical Association to act on the status of the Kinsey Reports as fraudulent data items, or to act on the revelation of the crimes committed by Kinsey. These abject failings has been complicated by other failures of the AMA. Since most people are not aware of these failings I have more questions to ponder here.<br />
<br />
For example, did you know that most people who claim to have same-sex physical desires also have mental or psychological disorders? Did you know that people who have identified as homosexuals who have received treatment for confirmed and diagnosed psychological problems have reported the loss of same-sex attraction? Did you know that people who have identified as homosexuals who have undergone counseling have reported the loss of same-sex attraction? Did you know that the AMA has blacklisted doctors who have tried to research the link between psychological disorders and homosexual attraction? Did you know that the AMA has worked to block medical reports or research that indicate a link between psychological disorders and homosexual attractions? Did you know that the AMA has worked to block medical reports or research that links specific chemicals and or bio-organic compounds to homosexual attractions?<br />
<br />
While that sends quite of few of you to Google with exclamations that such events can't be right and that I have to be wrong, I'm just going to point you to <a href="http://exodusinternational.org/love-won-out/">Love Won Out</a>. Which will link you to many of the former homosexuals who have been treated or counseled, and some who have been through treatment for other mental disorders and found themselves without homosexual attractions. <br />
<br />
Here's another factor to consider. A few years back there was a push to find a <span style="font-style: italic;">"Homosexual Gene"</span> which would cause somebody to become Homosexual. The entire concept didn't sit right with anybody who was awake during high-school biology where we learned that in order for genes to be passed on, there had to be kids. Going back to the <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">physically incapable of producing children </span></span>bit from earlier, there is no physical way for Homosexuals to pass on a gene that would cause same-sex attraction. <br />
<br />
It is, however, very possible to pass on or generate things like <span style="font-style: italic;">Down's Syndrome</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">Cerebral Palsy</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">Autism</span>, and many other known birth or near-birth medical conditions. See where this is going? While it is physically impossible to pass on a <span style="font-style: italic;">"homosexual gene,"</span> it would be possible to pass on or generate a chemical imbalance or other mental disorder that would cause same-sex attraction. Keep in mind that hormones and pheromones as methods to modify sexual behavior are scientific facts, not to mention the non-scientific existence of aphrodisiacs which proclaim to modify sexual behavior. This is why the AMA, and for that matter other international medical organizations, blockage of research into the psychological, biological, and chemical effects on same-sex attraction is such a major point of contention. Such blockages are not just irresponsible, there is evidence to support that those blockages have stifled and stymied other areas of potential medical advances. All this blockage for the sake of perpetrating a fraud. Again, anybody who was awake through High-School Biology <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">should have caught this</span></span>. This is not, as one might say, rocket science. <br />
<br />
The medical problem has been complicated by the influx of liberal democrats into positions of authority within news sources; like the Associated Press, Reuters, CBS, NBC, ABC, Microsoft-NBC, and CNN; and entertainment production companies. Homosexuals have been given a free pass for promotion by the people who are actually in charge of creating most of the content that is aired on television or in movies. Ergo there has been the artificial perception that Homosexuals really do make up a large percentage of an <span style="font-style: italic;">"average population."</span><br />
<br />
Economically speaking, that has never been true. From a purely economical standpoint companies that support Homosexuals tend to lose money. The dramatic case in point here is the Disney Corporation which suffered an extended boycott, and only managed to stay profitable by slicing expenditures such as planned cruise lines, planned resort expansions and renovations, the shuttering of the 2D animation studio and the reliance on a third party for Disney family movies, and so on and so forth. The final result of the boycott was the ejection of Michael Eisner and the return of the Disney Corporation to a family friendly oriented company. <br />
<br />
The same holds true with the Voting population. The dramatic case in point here is the vote in California on Homosexual Marriage. California is considered one of the hot-spots for supporters of the Homosexual Agenda, and they still got smacked down. To put it bluntly, every single state that has brought up the definition of Marriage as One Man and One Women has passed that measure. Every single state that has brought up the possibility of legally recognizing Homosexual Marriage has defeated the measure. <br />
<br />
Put bluntly, supporters of the Homosexual Agenda are neither an Economic nor a Political Factor. <br />
<br />
What they are is a bunch of people who have been given a megaphone, and told to have fun with it.<br />
<br />
To repeat myself, I realize this posting is not going to be very popular. It is going to attract a lot of people who don't want to discuss things in terms of cold hard facts. It is going to attract attention from people who probably wish I had just stayed dormant instead of laying out another colloquial smack down.<br />
<br />
Will this posting have any effect on the political landscape as we move closer to the US elections?<br />
<br />
Well, that's really up to the people reading this.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08951185953504736035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4202507793705383029.post-33713521064448206372012-04-25T17:20:00.000-07:002012-04-25T17:45:27.835-07:00<span style="font-size: small;">Valve asked me some question. Here are my responses to them. <br /><br /><b>Why do you use Linux (if you do)?</b> </span><span style="font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: small;">For me I have several reasons. I've been through most of the stages that many of your other /Linux users will go through, such as:</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<ul>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">Curiosity as to what /Linux is </span> </li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">Curiosity as to what other Operating Systems there are available </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">Knee jerk response to Microsoft </span></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;">My current usage of /Linux is dictated by well, more pragmatic reasons. Bruce Byfield actually has one of the better rundowns on this subject: <a href="http://www.datamation.com/open-source/kde-vs.-windows-7-1.html">http://www.datamation.com/open-source/kde-vs.-windows-7-1.html</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;">KDE basically, well, dominates in terms of desktop ease of usage. KDE has far more functionally and is far more flexible, and thus far more useful, than any other desktop environment on any operating system. I use Linux specifically because it lets me actually -use- my computer on my terms. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;">I suppose a better question would be: Why do I still use Microsoft Windows at all? Quick shot there: I'm a gamer. Game publishers don't know how to approach /Linux, and therefor if I want to game I'm either stuck with half-useful emulation solutions or wrappers. Which don't always work. </span></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /><b>What would you like to see Valve do here? What about non-game related things?</b> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: small;">These two kind of go together. I've written about this subject before back in 2009: <a href="http://zerias.blogspot.com/2009/05/how-single-3rd-party-like-valve-can.html">http://zerias.blogspot.com/2009/05/how-single-3rd-party-like-valve-can.html</a><br /><br />Okay, yes, that post is a bit on the dreamy side in aspect of micro-payment potential, but the rest of I think is still very pertinent. Commercial publishers, and for that matter commercial developers, don't know how to approach Linux for multiple reasons. How do game publishers handle the packaging question? How do game publishers handle the API questions? How do publishers handle secure purchases? <br /><br />In fairness some of the issues have been addressed in the intervening years. Android/Linux has helped force the issue on API's used by developers. The Consumer Desktop Linux market is largely split between Distributions onDebian(pure) or Debian(Ubuntu), to the point that if you target Debian(pure) for development you can probably be pretty sure your application will be compatible with whatever /Linux the downstream user has installed. Application stores such as Steam, Itunes, Amazon Android App Store, and GooglePlay have gotten the average customers used to the concepts behind central-package-management and package-repositories. <br /><br />I think there is a lot of room for Valve to move within Desktop /Linux in respect to games. However, that does come with some caveats. GNU/Linux is not going to be an automatic million-dollar maker out of the door. The commercial games industry has shot itself in the ass so many times on the /Linux subject that most of the commercial games target market no longer cares. Granted the inability of the commercial games market to target Linux has been a fueling factor to the explosion of Independent developers: case in point being things like Humble Bundle, Indie Royale, and Kickstarter.<br /><br />I suspect that a lot of the Desktop/Linux market is going to be looking for parity first: e.g. games they already have on Steam becoming available for download and play on /Linux. But Valve's been in this position before when Steam was just getting started on Windows, and when Steam first hit OSX. I'm pretty sure that Valve has a handle on what it means to grow a market, and customers will always be looking to purchase entertainment.<br /><br />***<br /><br />As far as non-game in relation to applications I'm not sure there's a lot of immediate room to work. Valve has hinted at a desire in the past to get involved with pushing commercial software packages through Steam and not just games. This is probably a smart move on Valve's part. <br /><br />However, there is no shortage of non-game software within GNU/Linux, a factor of the commercial market's inability to get consumer software products onto GNU/Linux. Some of the major applications consumers use today, such as Firefox, Chrome Browser, Libre Office, and VLC, have roots in /Linux development. Most GNU/Linux distributions have a wide-range of software preloaded to address most common computer usage requirements, and pretty much all GNU/Linux distributions leverage package-repositories for additional software packages. E.G. major point of using a GNU/Linux to begin with.<br /><br />Where I think there is a lot of future room to work is within the definition of non-game but still pertaining to entertainment. Expanding Steam to include movies, music, or even e-books, would help broaden the appeal of the Steam platform.<br /><br />Another long-term factor would be Steam on Android in general. One of the benefits to the Android software ecosystem has been the competing application stores and the ability to load applications that don't come from stores. Sony's gearing up to enter the competition with Playstation Suite, which will connect with other Sony services for music and movies. Sony seems to be setting themselves up where they sell content without regard to hardware. Buy a movie on Playstation Suite and watch it on your PS3, PS4, Vita, or any device capable of running Playstation Suite. <br /><br />What I don't know is whether or not Valve is actually working with Sony on this positioning. I can very easily see a deal going down between Valve and Sony for SteamPlay Content to automatically include access to that content on Playstation Suite, and vice versa. </span></blockquote>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08951185953504736035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4202507793705383029.post-85187073738570744882012-04-23T07:46:00.000-07:002012-04-23T07:51:27.543-07:00Okay. This is interesting.<div style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">I just signed into blogger after the Google+ revamp went live to find that Blogger has also received a back-end revamp. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Unfortunately it looks like while the UI got an overhaul, the HTML generator didn't. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">This post is five sentences of plain text with 298 characters, 367 if you count spaces.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">It generated 13 lines of html with 834 characters, 935 with spaces. </span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08951185953504736035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4202507793705383029.post-74862366090663079532012-03-27T10:32:00.000-07:002012-03-27T10:32:30.308-07:00AT&TI kinda of got asked recently why I seriously dislike AT&T as a company. I've made more than a few cracks about their <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5370493/apple-genius-bar-iphones-30-call-drop-is-normal-in-new-york">inability to upgrade their network infrastructure</a> and their <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/10/confirmed-apple-and-atandt-signed-five-year-iphone-exclusivity-de/">paying millions for an exclusive phone license</a>. I also spoke out against <a href="http://www.gamenikkiinexile.com/g3/inTheNews/Jason.php?id=72">their attempted purchase of T-Mobile</a>, and pretty much the entire tech community laughed it's collective rear-end off at <a href="http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2012/03/att-declares-it-could-have-saved-t-mobile-from-job-losses.ars">AT&T's petulant press release on T-Mobile's layoffs</a>. <br />
<br />
Then there is the whole problem with <a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2401566,00.asp">AT&T's throttling of subscribers bandwidth</a>. There is an extreme disconnect between what subscribers think they are paying for, and what <a href="http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/03/att-throttling-adjustment/">AT&T thinks the customer is paying for</a>. Couple this bandwidth throttling debacle with AT&T's <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/06/technology/att_worst_carrier/index.htm">continuous history of lousy customer service</a>, and I think the basis for my personal dislike for AT&T is outlined. As a company AT&T has been the poster child for executive incompetence and corporate mismanagement. <br />
<br />
The problem with AT&T is further complicated that, on the whole, the entire company is basically shamed by a few people the shareholders should kick to the curb. I have friends who have been with AT&T for years in the Southeast USA and have <b>never</b> had a problem with dropped calls or bad phone service. I have friends who have gone into the AT&T store and were given online promotional deals by in-store managers. At least local to where I live AT&T will happily talk discounts for multiyear contracts and multiple phone purchase, something other service providers such a Sprint, Boost, Virgin, and T-Mobile would not discuss. <br />
<br />
Then there is the ultimate matter of pricing. AT&T's pricing far undercuts Verizon, and in the Obama Economy, every penny matters. I might not like AT&T's management, but if it was my money on the line for service? If it was other people's money on the line? I am not entirely sure I would not go with AT&T as a cell provider right now.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08951185953504736035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4202507793705383029.post-9212482745435762912012-02-17T18:49:00.004-08:002012-02-18T00:23:04.918-08:00America is not that Stupid.<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace; font-size: small;">Saw an interesting statement by Paul Krugman: <span style="font-style: italic;">"pundits who describe America as a fundamentally conservative country are wrong"</span><br />
<br />
I think Mr. Krugman is right, but not in the way he thinks. I would phrase the statement like this: <span style="font-style: italic;">"America is not fundamentally stupid."</span><br />
<br />
The fact is this: The socialistic economic policies exposed by liberal democrats like Obama and Nancy Pelosi do not work. Just off the top of my head I can reference U.S.S.R., China, Eastern Europe, and today's Western Europe of examples of this fact. The belief that <span style="font-style: italic;">"Big Brother Government"</span> is a solution to problems has cost billions of human lives over any number of centuries. <br />
<br />
I think on several levels the majority of the American Public realizes that <span style="font-style: italic;">Big Government</span> is not an answer and that in order for them to personally succeed they need to do things themselves. Case in point here is me. I went out and got an education as a Pastry Chef. I will be soon starting a job putting my new education to use. I have not relied on the government to finance me. I haven't relied on food stamps. I have pulled myself back out of the hole I fell in and am ready to keep climbing upwards.<br />
<br />
* * *<br />
<br />
The success of the socialistic agenda and the rise of Big Government in the United States has largely succeeded due to a two-fold push. The first fold has been the traditional control of the mainstream news feeds. Organizations like ABC, NBC, MicrosoftNBC, CBS, CNN, Reuters, and the Associated Press are controlled by executives pushing a liberal democrat / socialist agenda. This control over the news has only been disrupted by the rise of the internet. Services such as MySpace, Facebook, and Blogger have given ordinary citizens the ability to connect with each other on a level that has dismantled the traditional news media. Today's American's are more comfortable with turning on the web-browser and doing a quick Google Search to check the background on a story, than just accepting the report on TV at face value.<br />
<br />
Okay, to be fair I will address the elephant in the room here. Fox News is not the right-wing leaning pundit it's competitors make it out to be. From a purely political perspective Fox News is a neutral party whose owning corporation is a left-wing body, but finds the neutral positioning to be profitable. It is only in comparison to the other news networks which <span style="font-weight: bold;">are</span> entrenched in liberal democrat dogma that Fox News appears to be <span style="font-style: italic;">right wing</span>. Again, rise of the internet. Google Search is your friend. The positioning of Fox News as an untrustworthy news source is dismantled on a regular basis. I'm not going to bother here, I have other things to type about.<br />
<br />
The other fold has been the judicial system. Liberal Democrats have been successful in pushing their agenda through the courts. Why? Well, because everytime a Liberal Democrat policy comes up for an actual <span style="font-weight: bold;">vote</span> it gets shot down. Dramatic case in point would be granting homosexuals the <span style="font-style: italic;">"right"</span> to marry. <br />
<br />
When it comes down to it nobody involved with pushing the Homosexual agenda has actually been able to explain why Homosexuals marrying is a <span style="font-style: italic;">"good thing"</span> and should be recognized under law. After-all the legal advantages of being married were initially drafted with idea of encouraging people to <span style="font-weight: bold;">have children</span>. You know, something Homosexuals can't physically accomplish. However the actual purposes of the legal advantages to being married have largely been ignored by those pressing the <span style="font-style: italic;">Homosexual Agenda</span> in favor of banging on irrelevant topics like <span style="font-style: italic;">equal rights</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">equality</span>. When legislation pushing the <span style="font-style: italic;">homosexual agenda</span> have actually come up for a <span style="font-weight: bold;">vote</span><span style="font-style: italic;"></span>, the legsilation has been defeated even in states where the percentage of people with liberal democrat and socialistic ideologies is very high, such as California. I went into this subject back in 2007: <a href="http://zerias.blogspot.com/2007/04/do-people-really-believe-this-yes.html">http://zerias.blogspot.com/2007/04/do-people-really-believe-this-yes.html</a> <br />
<br />
Since the votes for pro-homosexual legislation has failed the supporters have instead turned to the court system to get their way instead. Again, Google Search is your friend. Look it up. Although I would start here: <a href="http://www.truetolerance.org/educate-yourself/">http://www.truetolerance.org/educate-yourself/</a><br />
<br />
* * *<br />
<br />
Getting back around to the point I was initially making, the push on socialism and<span style="font-style: italic;"> big government </span>has run into roadblocks over the past 4 years alone. The average citizen has seen for themselves the policies and effects of a liberal-democrat aligned political system under Obama. The Tea Party deserves credit as the only reason the degradation was halted with it's mid-presidential term election. <br />
<br />
One of the key things to keep in mind here is that the Tea Party is not really a conservative or republican aligned political party, although the mass news media would love to position the Tea Party as such. The Tea Party is comprised of people with liberal philosophies, conservative philosophies, democrat backgrounds, republican backgrounds, and so on and so forth. The Tea Party is also about <span style="font-weight: bold;">education</span>.<br />
<br />
An average Tea Party meeting is not just somebody handing out a little card and telling everybody else present how to vote. An average Tea Party meeting is citizens getting together and actually trying to learn about the political and economic issues at hand. The result is a voting party that approaches the polls with a better handle over what is being voted on. The problem the liberal democrats have is that educated voters are not likely to vote for policies, legislation, or candidates that have socialism aligned goals or ideals. This goes back to what I said at the start: The Average American is not actually stupid.<br />
<br />
The backlash from the Tea Party shocked the, for lack of a better term, <span style="font-style: italic;">Old Guard</span> Republicans. For probably the first time since Ronald Reagan the Republican Party was controlled by a new generation of voters who simply didn't toe the party line.<br />
<br />
Now, is the Tea Party an overall conservative party? In some aspects yes, one could say the Tea Party has conservative alignments. These alignments are largely based on education of people who want to learn, not simple beliefs or repeated dogma. As evidenced in the 2010 elections, voter education is the worst enemy of liberal democrats and their policies.<br />
<br />
* * *<br />
<br />
If we accept that the average America citizen is not fundamentally stupid, then yes, economic recovery is possible. Getting officials into office who oppose Socialistic Policies and understand that a larger Government is going to solve no problems is just a part of the solution for America moving forward.</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08951185953504736035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4202507793705383029.post-71357989697406531672012-02-11T16:05:00.000-08:002012-02-13T12:18:54.447-08:00Windows 8: Let's get ready to Rumble<div style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><span style="font-size: small;">Okay, this post is primarily driven by a <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/113169713749496726739/posts/DDCDJHGVYdN">Google+ stream by SVN</a>. The background of the post is this: Microsoft is planning the launch of the next Windows 8 test release later this month. We do know some of the details that will be changed in the next release compared to the current Developer Preview such as the removal of the Start Button from the Windows 8 interface.<br />
<br />
Now, I've been pretty vocal on just how bad the existing Windows 8 Developer Preview is. I've got an installation set up against an Athlon64 X2 @ 2ghz with a RadeonHD 4650 graphics card. Since the preview was released I've shown it to everybody who has come to visit me either for computer help, to pick up baked goods, or just to hang out. Such people have included Mary-Kay consultants, school janitors, retired teachers, car mechanics, restaurant managers, jewelry store managers, and their friends and relatives. The collected response from everybody who has sat down and actually <b>used</b> the Windows 8 developer preview has ranged from <i>"you cannot be serious"</i> to "<i>if this had been on my computer it would have gone into the trash can</i>."<br />
<br />
Thing is, I used to have an installation of Ubuntu running their version of Gnome 2.x and I asked people to use it. Most, but not all, of the casual consumers that I showed Gnome 2.x to hated it and had negative reactions. That's one of the reasons I slag on Gnome all the time. The Gnome Human-Interface-Design group's approach for a "Grandma Friendly" desktop is complete and utter horse hockey. Windows 8 is the first time that any Gnome 2.x based Linux has actually been described as an interface that casual consumers would <i><b>prefer</b></i> if they were given a choice. That's how bad the Developer Preview is and from the changes Microsoft is making, the upcoming Consumer Beta is going to be <i><b>WORSE</b>.</i><br />
<br />
As of right now there is a trend towards deliberate design flaws on the part of many Desktop Oriented Linux Distributions. Desktops such as <i>Unity</i> and <i>Gnome 3.x</i> attempt to address non-existent problems such as <i>clutter</i>. The result of such approaches has resulted in user-revolts with Gnome-centric distributions, such as Linux Mint, attempting to add the functionality of Gnome 2.x back into Gnome 3.x.<br />
<br />
The good news for Linux distributions is that their consumer-base is largely made up of consumers that are relatively technology-literate, or communicate with people who are technologically-literate. Ergo design blunders like <i>Unity</i> and <i>Gnome 3.x</i> are being countered and the overall negative effects are mitigated. <br />
<br />
Windows 8 has no such user-base connections. Most Windows users tend to be technologically-illiterate. This means that the consequences of Microsoft following the footsteps of <i>Unity</i> and <i>Gnome 3.x</i> are going to be far more severe.<br />
<br />
One of the core problems Microsoft faces it the attempt to unify the Phone, Tablet, and Desktop operating systems under one single interface. Microsoft has tried such approaches multiple times in the past and those attempts have <i><b>never worked</b></i>. Microsoft has been pushing the <i>"tablet"</i> form factor and other mobile solutions for well over a decade, but the ultimate product result is often described as a <i>"solution in search of a problem."</i> Microsoft's previous attempts have tried to shove the existing Windows user-interface architecture into the smaller system form factors. Windows 8 is an inversion of that approach as it tries to scale a small system form factor into something usable on a larger system form factor.<br />
<br />
The market realities that Microsoft has itself proven are as follows:<br />
<br />
<ul><li>An interface that works well for a large-screen monitor will result in ultra-tiny font and near-unusable controls on a small-screen such as those used by a phone.</li>
<li>An interface designed for a small-screen such as those used by a phone will look like something designed for children on larger format screens.</li>
<li>An interface that is designed for the precise control of a mouse and the multiple inputs of a keyboard will not directly translate to a touch-screen interface; any such translations will require software overhead to provide for keyboard functionality through the user-interface as well as accommodate less precise pointing methods.</li>
<li>An interface that is designed to accommodate touch screens with multiple finger-width possibilities will not directly translate to a keyboard and mouse configuration. On-screen Buttons that are sized for a finger to hit will consume an inordinate amount of space for a mouse, and functions that are bound to swipes of the screen and on-screen objects will not be required with other additional input sources. </li>
</ul><br />
The Windows 8 Developer preview scraps everything Microsoft has ever learned about user-interface design from their own product releases. Many such mistakes are the very causes of Microsoft's non-factor status in the mobile market.<br />
<br />
The mobile revolution as we know it through Android/Linux and IOS/Mach_BSD has largely occurred preciously because Microsoft was not involved. Android/Linux and IOS/Mach_BSD have been successful for many reasons, such as their use of inexpensive and battery efficient ARM hardware. Another reason is that the Android/Linux and IOS/Mach_BSD platforms approached the mobile market with user-interfaces and operating systems that were designed to work within small form factor constrained design limitations.<br />
<br />
Android/Linux and IOS/Mach_BSD are not designed to work on large format systems with multiple input methods, and nor is there any real attempt to have either operating system target such systems. Google and Apple maintain completely separate distributions and operating systems to handle traditional desktop tasks; Chromium_OS/Linux and OSX/Mach_BSD. <br />
<br />
Considering that Google and Apple have succeeded where Microsoft has unilaterally failed one would think that Microsoft would take some notes. Indeed Microsoft has taken notes on the successes of products from Google and Apple. Windows 8 is indeed supporting the ARM architecture.<br />
<br />
So let's get this out of the way first of all. <i><b>BORING</b></i>.<br />
<br />
For those who don't understand why I say this is boring, I'm just going to give you one link: <a href="http://www.debian.org/ports/">http://www.debian.org/ports/</a><br />
<br />
The Official release version of the Debian Operating System supports <i><b>9 Different Processor Architectures </b></i>with the Linux kernel. In addition the official release supports 2 of those processor architectures using the kfreebsd kernel.<br />
<br />
Unofficial and/or discontinued releases of the Debian Operating System include an <i><b>additional 9 Different Processor Architectures</b></i>. Unofficial and/or discontinued versions also include support for two more kernels, Hurd and netbsd.<br />
<br />
In comparison Microsoft supporting a single new architecture is downright laughable. Microsoft's attempts at Metro program compatibility is also laughable. When Microsoft covers as many platforms as Debian does with the program support that Debian manages, then we can have a talk about how incredible Microsoft's engineering team is. Till then, Microsoft is still the amateur chump talking big with absolutely nothing to back up the boasting. Sorry if this is a bit too blunt for the people who thought Windows 8 was somehow doing something new... Debian's been doing this multiple architecture / multiple program release thing <i><b>for over a decade.</b></i><br />
<br />
Now then. Obviously I am not impressed by Microsoft's support of ARM. I think Microsoft's new position is a knee-jerk reaction to try and shore up the assault on the commercial industries reliance on Microsoft branded products. If nothing else the sales of Android/Linux and IOS/Mach_BSD products have gotten consumers to realize that they don't need Microsoft products on their computing devices.<br />
<br />
I also think that Microsoft's design direction taken with Windows 8 is likewise derived from a knee-jerk reaction. Microsoft does not understand where the computing market is going on what amounts to fundamental levels. Microsoft sees Android/Linux and IOS/Mach_BSD as direct competitors and has designed the Windows 8 user-interface to compete against those platforms.<br />
<br />
The problem is those platforms are not Microsoft's Competitor. This is:<br />
<br />
<br />
<center><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/UPkYyDiuGyc" width="560"></iframe></center><br />
<br />
If I was a Microsoft employee KDE is what would keep me up at night sweating bullets. The KDE 4.x release already incorporates several interesting technologies that make it a more attractive and productive choice for both business and consumer customers. Long time tech writer <a href="http://www.datamation.com/open-source/kde-vs.-windows-7-1.html">Bruce Byfield has even gone so far as to state</a>: <br />
<br />
<div style="font-style: italic; margin-left: 40px;">However, now that software like KDE development is outpacing proprietary choices like Windows, these basic advantages are more compelling than they have ever been. Increasingly, we are now in an era in which free-licensed software like KDE is not only an ethical choice, <b>but a pragmatic one as well.</b></div><br />
Among the interesting technologies KDE offers is it's <a href="http://userbase.kde.org/Plasma#Activities">Activities</a>. Don't worry if KDE Activities are confusing at first, <a href="http://www.datamation.com/open-source/the-mystery-of-kde-activities-1.html">Bruce Byfield has a very good post on the technology at work</a>. To simply state what <i>Activities</i> can do, they create different desktop interfaces that can handle completely different layouts of the user-interface elements. <br />
<br />
Recent updates have extended the base functionality of the <i>Activities</i> technology. For example <a href="http://www.kde.org/announcements/4.8/plasma.php">KDE 4.8 attached power-management settings to the KRandR and Activities function</a>. I highly suggest <a href="http://drfav.wordpress.com/2011/10/02/forge-sprint-2011-power-management-and-its-future/">reading drfav's wordpress post on some of the implications of this particular update</a>, as well as the <a href="http://drfav.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/power-management-a-new-screencast/">accompanying video</a>. With KDE 4.8 it is now possible to setup different activities to have different power profiles, and those power settings change by just swapping Activities.<br />
<br />
So, let's through a little bit fuel onto this fire. <a href="http://www.kde.org/workspaces/">KDE currently has 3 different interface configurations</a>. The default configuration is called <b><i><a href="http://www.kde.org/workspaces/plasmadesktop/">Plasma Desktop</a></i></b> and offers a traditionally oriented desktop design configured for high resolution monitors. There also is a configuration referred to as <i><b><a href="http://www.kde.org/workspaces/plasmanetbook/">Plasma Netbook</a></i></b> which is optimized for low resolution screens and low-resource hardware. The last is <b><i><a href="http://community.kde.org/Plasma/Active/Contour">KDE Contour</a></b></i>, an interface designed around touch-screen interfaces. The KDE Plasma-Active project also adds a UI layout and design guideline for touch-interface designed applications referred to as <i><a href="http://community.kde.org/Plasma/Active/Apps">Active-Apps</a></i>. For the most part KDE is capable of switching between each of these different interface configurations while programs remain open and running. KDE achieves this capability by decoupling <b>system functionality</b> from the <b>user-interface</b>.<br />
<br />
Okay, as of right now I do not think it is possible to use Activities to change through the Workspace interfaces. Nor do I think it is possible yet for applications to automatically be reskinned on an Activity Switch. For example, if you switch from <i>Plasma-Desktop</I> to <i>Plasma-Contour</i> while Amarok is running, Amarok will still be presented with the keyboard and mouse interface rather than an <i>Active App</i> interface. <br />
<br />
Imagine for a second when KDE does gain these abilities and what this could mean for hardware vendors. Sony, for example, could offer a Playstation Tablet backed by KDE. Sony implements the XMB as a Activity bound Workspace interface atop KDE and the user has a Sony Tablet experience while in tablet mode. When the user sits down and attaches their tablet to an external monitor KDE detects the monitor and switches to an Activity with a Plasma-Desktop interface and cranks the clockspeeds up for a desktop computer experience, all without interrupting any running applications. <br />
<br />
This technology gap between KDE and any other interface is the stuff of nightmares for companies like Microsoft. KDE is the defining model of how the user-interface problems between hardware devices should have been approached to begin with. In the light of what KDE is doing? Metro isn't just pathetic, it's a complete and utter joke.<br />
<br />
I can also make the problem even worse for Microsoft with just 5 words: <b>KDE. Is. Operating. System. Neutral.</b><br />
<br />
I can also turn this into a full on Cthulhu class nightmare with just two more words: <b>Android. Compatibility</b>.<br />
<br />
Let me explain. The KDE Software Compilation is primarily designed as desktop environment that runs atop GNU/Linux. It is also an open source project and can theoretically be adapted to any operating system. On paper this means that it should be possible to run the KDE interface atop operating systems built against Android/Linux or WebOS/Linux. This alone could be significant as Android/Linux vendors such as Amazon are already creating and maintaining their own interfaces atop the Android Operating System. The downside here is that getting KDE up and running as an User Interface Environment on Android/Linux or WebOS/Linux would require large amounts of new code, and the KDE developers have been pretty clear that they have no desire to do that work.<br />
<br />
The flip side is that Android itself is also an open-source project and the structure of <a href="http://developer.android.com/guide/index.html">Android/Linux applications are well documented</a>. <a href="http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2011/12/theres-no-such-thing-as-android-only-android-compatible.ars">Arstechnica actually has a pretty article on this subject already</a>. It is fully possible for Operating Systems that are <b>NOT</b> running Android/Linux to provide binary compatibility for Android/Linux applications. Where getting the KDE interfaces to operate atop a non GNU/Linux operating system and kernel would be very difficult, getting Android/Linux applications running atop a KDE/GNU/Linux distribution is incredibly easy.<br />
<br />
If you thought this was a bonfire already, let me add some fuel, say, something like: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperTransport">Hypertransport</a><br />
<br />
Imagine for a second buying an ARM tablet loaded with KDE/GNU/Linux. You wander around town doing the normal tablet things with Android Applications. You get home and you plug your tablet into a docking station. This docking station just happens to have a couple of hypertransport links that now connects your tablet to say, an AMD Piledriver processor and a RadeonHD class graphics card. As your tablet shifts from the tablet display to your external monitor the tablet syncs the data you've changed while in tablet mode to say, a larger drive. Other programs, such as Valve's GNU+Android/Linux Steam client and Sony's Playstation Suite synch with data stored on the larger internal-hard-drive, such as a list of installed games. <br />
<br />
As the system finishes reconfiguring, the tablet goes from running atop an extremely power-efficient ARM processor and a limited graphics processor, to running with an x86 processor with a gaming class graphics card. From the users perspective they haven't done anything but plugged their tablet into a dock and wait a few seconds, and now they still have everything they were doing running on screen, but a much more powerful computer with far more capabilities.<br />
<br />
The kicker? Aside from ARM not running on a Hypertransport bus and KDE not having this software switch functionality yet, and the need for somebody to write a synchronization package to actually perform the data-sync, the rest is already possible today. Hypertransport already supports <a href="http://www.hypertransport.org/default.cfm?page=HyperTransportSpecifications3">central processor hotplugging</a>. In addition GNU/Linux running atop <a href="http://www.ibm.com/ibm/ideasfromibm/us/roadrunner/20080609/index.shtml">multiple processor architectures is also a reality</a>. <a href="http://www.khronos.org/opencl/">Technologies such as OpenCL</a> also remove some of the limitations of switching processor architectures.<br />
<br />
Imagine for a second the market implications these types of technology advances have for companies like HP, Dell, or Sony. This is stuff that is not 5 or 10 years down the line. This is stuff that could be on the market in less than a years time. <br />
<br />
To reiterate what I said earlier. Android/Linux and IOS/Mach_BSD are indeed headaches for Microsoft. They've cracked the ribs of hardware vendors who have spent decades relying on Microsoft. Consumers are now more open to concept of buying computing products that don't carry that magic Microsoft Badge.<br />
<br />
For what KDE represents, and what it is doing <b>NOW</b>, it's the competitor that Microsoft should be paying attention to. <br />
<br />
Now, will hardware vendors realize the possibilities that a KDE/GNU/Linux system offers them? Will hardware vendors leverage those possibilities in products and make stuff that consumers actually want to buy?<br />
<br />
My suspicion is yes. As of right now the real-consumer backlash on Windows 8 is going to make the Vista backlash look like a drop in the bucket. Hardware vendors are likely going to be left scrambling to come up with answers... and KDE will be there waiting to help.<br />
<br />
* * *<br />
<br />
Update: I received this response from <a href="http://aseigo.blogspot.com/">Aseigo</a><br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 40px;"><i>great blog entry; and thanks for the support. it's great to know others "get" what we're trying to achieve here .. and with the growing number of people and companies that are rallying around the technology and the ideas, i think we have a very good chance to be extremely successful in the coming years.. <br><br>cheers!</i></div><br />
</span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08951185953504736035noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4202507793705383029.post-38188961974987108482012-01-18T21:18:00.001-08:002012-01-20T10:33:53.938-08:00SOPA: A Partisan Fight.<span id="internal-source-marker_0.7298260694461951" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">No, I haven’t forgotten this blog. Like many of my other ventures over the years, such as Mepisguides, my lack of updates was driven by my desire to keep from letting my personal life interfere with my professional life. Now that I’m slowly getting my feet back under me I feel a bit more confident in posting again. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The subjects this time are the infamous acts of legislation titled </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Stop Online Piracy Act</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> and </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Protect Intellectual Property Act</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">. Yesterday, January 18th, was the day that several prominent online sites protested the legislation by shutting down services. Over the course of the day 13 congressmen voiced their position of opposition to the legislation, with several notable sponsors of the legislation pulling their support. Not surprisingly many of the congressmen making an about face were Republicans, which did lead to the surprising comment from </span><a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/pipa-support-collapses-with-13-new-opponents-in-senate.ars"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000099; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">Arstechnica’s Timothy Lee:</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The partisan slant of the defections is surprising because copyright has not traditionally been considered a partisan issue.</span></div><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Well, Timothy is wrong. The issues at hand with the proposed SOPA and PIPA legislation did not involve copyright. The issues at hand were those of personal liberty and personal freedom. I pointed this out on </span><a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/113169713749496726739/posts/RreSbHnasLA"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000099; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">SVN’s Google+ page</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">It should, but it probably won't. SOPA was written by people with no concept of personal liberty, property rights, or consumer rights. It was written with no concept of Due Process of Law, and no concept of representation. SOPA was forced into Congressional consideration by outright bribery and extortion by people who believed that they were inherently better than everyone else and thus entitled to do anything they wanted to in order to get their way.</span></div><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Some of the core issues are really the same as those behind </span><a href="http://zerias.blogspot.com/2010/08/net-neutrality-what-does-it-actually.html"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000099; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;">Net Neutrality</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">. The organizations behind the RIAA and MPAA do not believe in the concepts of personal property or consumer rights. Those organizations do not believe that consumers can actually </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">“own”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> a product. Case in point is the long history of lawsuits against television recording devices such as VCR decks, Tivo, and other video capture products. For decades the organizations that back the RIAA and MPAA have dumped billions of dollars into methods that “</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">protect</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">” the content they sell or broadcast from being copied. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The actions of the members of the RIAA and MPAA reflect strong liberal democrat and socialistic tendencies. Just as the rights of the “</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">state</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">” supersede the rights of the citizen, the </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">“rights”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> of the RIAA and MPAA supersede the rights of consumers. Legislation such as SOPA and PIPA further this agenda, restricting the rights of the citizen while giving organizations such as the RIAA and MPAA more power to further their agenda’s. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The reality of the situation is that the member organizations of the RIAA and MPAA are still stuck on ancient business models. Broadcast Television, for example, still works on the concepts of advertisers paying for breaks in the storyline of the program. However, more and more consumers are getting their television programs through time-shifting devices such as TiVo; or through streaming services such as Hulu and Netflix. Rather than try and explore new business models the vast majority of television production companies still try to make their shows work around a business model dating from the time of Jack Benny and George Burns. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Commercial Content</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> industry loves to blame piracy for their financial woes, but piracy really is not the problem at hand. The reality is that people who pirate content </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">are going to pirate content</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the saying </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">“Locks keep out only the honest”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> is a Jewish proverb dating back to Biblical times, as in thousands of years ago. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The problem the </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Commercial Content</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> industry faces is that piracy is an increasingly attractive alternative to buying content. Let me put this in real terms for myself. If I rip a DVD using Handbrake I no longer have to put up with that mandatory selection of trailers or promotional content that normal dvd players cannot skip. Additionally, if I have a large series of DVD’s, such as </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Hogan’s Heroes</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">, I can store entire seasons on a single media server and just browse through my shows as I please. However, the </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Commercial Content </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">producers do not believe that I have the right to consume my content as I see fit. They believe they have the right to dictate how I consume my content and what I consume my content with. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The RIAA and MPAA do not have the rights to make those determinations</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">. Period. Stop. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;"><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">* * *</span></div><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Looking ahead a lot of analysts are now wondering what the next move on the part of the RIAA and the MPAA is going to be. It is my opinion that they need to be short-circuited and shut down.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The reality is this: </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Theft is theft.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> There are already numerous laws on the books both at the federal and state level within the United States that clearly spell out how theft should be handled. There is no need for special legislation to deal with </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">“Online Piracy.” </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The FBI proved this point by taking down the sites Megaupload.com and MegaVideo.com using existing standing laws with <i><b>absolutely no need for additional legislation</b></i>. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">This goes back to what I said earlier. <i><b>Existing Laws already cover protection and enforcement of Copyright</b></i>. The issues at hand was never about Copyright. SOPA and PIPA contained no provisions or actions that would enforce copyright that <i><b>existing laws did not already accomplish</b></i>. SOPA and PIPA were always, from the day they were bribed into existence, always about limiting consumer rights and giving more power to entities who need to be shut down and dismantled. <i><b> </b></i></span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">What we do have a <i><b>-need-</b></i> for is legislation that states that consumers have rights. We do need legislation that says it’s legal for consumers to copy television content that they paid for to any device they want to in any format that they want to, on any operating system that they want to. We do need legislation that says it’s legal for consumers to copy music or video content that they have paid for to any device they want to in any format that they to, on any operating system they want to. We do need legislation that says it is legal for consumers to run or copy video game content that they have paid for to any device that they want to in any format that they want to, on any operating system that they want. We do need legislation that says it’s legal for consumers to resell, gift, or trade content they have purchased to anybody they want to. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">What we </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">-need-</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">is legislation that makes <i>Digital Rights Management</i> that results in </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Digital Rights Removal</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><i></i>illegal</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The reality is this: Getting rid of Digital Rights Management schemes that limit a user's freedom to own their content at a Federal and/or State level removes one of the largest barriers between </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Pirated Content</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> and </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Purchased Content. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">If I no longer have to deal with DVD’s and Blu-Ray discs that don’t have unskippable trailers, I’d be more likely to pick up a legal copy than go and get an illegal copy that does not contain all of that extra crap. By the same token, I'd be more likely to buy a Blu-Ray movie with a video resolution of 1920*1080 if I was able to watch that video without having to purchase equipment that can pass HDCP signals. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Another side effect of making such </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">DRM</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> schemes illegal would be the crash in costs. To speak for myself. even with a paycheck I was not buying a whole lot of videos games because I just was not willing to spend $60 a game. Looking at game sales, I’m not the only person whose skipping </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">“hot new release”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> titles because they are a bit on the ludicrous side of expensive. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The economic rule of thumb here is pretty old: </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The more people you can potentially sell to, the more people you HAVE to sell to, and thus the more people that are in a position to buy your product</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">. Really. Not that hard. It’s not. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to wrap your noggin around this economic principle. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Cratering prices on content and making that content easier to access and easier to use would go a long ways towards making people more likely to </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">buy</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> that content. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Now, is the United States now in a position to hit the RIAA and MPAA below the belt and dismantle their anti-consumer and anti-personal-rights war? I’d like to think yes. The SOPA and PIPA protests have highlighted just how partisan the core arguments actually are. With an upcoming election year it may be possible to get candidates into office who can push through pro-consumer legislation and return to consumers their rights to use their purchased property as those consumers see fit. </span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">* * * </span></div><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Now, as an addendum, I do want to single out services that have implemented non-restrictive Digital Rights Management, notably the Steam network developed by Valve Software and the Desura network. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Both of these services leverage <i>Single-Sign-On</i> technology which requires a user to sign in and certify their account against a master-server. From that point users can access content distributed through the Valve Steam and Desura networks on any platforms that support the content Valve and Desura offer through those services. In addition both services have offline implementations that store the user's credentials and allow consumers to still access their content even when no internet access is available. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Now, neither service is perfect, and I'll go more into what could be done with such services as I actually write about them. </span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08951185953504736035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4202507793705383029.post-29350635440165737302011-03-31T08:48:00.000-07:002011-03-31T08:57:50.122-07:00Ebay listing...since I haven't gotten any emails outside of scammers, and no phone calls...<br />
<br />
I've pushed the computers to Ebay:<br />
<br />
Laptop: <a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=130503586049&ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=130503586049&ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT</a><br />
<br />
C2D: <a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=130503579952&ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=130503579952&ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT</a><br />
<br />
A64X2: <a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=130503581623&ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=130503581623&ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT</a>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08951185953504736035noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4202507793705383029.post-58289548148666781942011-03-25T00:07:00.000-07:002011-03-25T00:07:50.793-07:00More details on the computersSince I'm about to go list these computers on HardOCP, here's a bit more background on each one:<br><br><span style="font-weight: bold;">Core 2 Duo / RadeonHD 4850 Crossfire X2</span><br><br><a href="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_6gkPL0jmAKE/TYtvrx3e1kI/AAAAAAAALNE/HEcYpSDqJ1M/s1600/0319111328.jpg"><img alt="" src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_6gkPL0jmAKE/TYtvrx3e1kI/AAAAAAAALNE/HEcYpSDqJ1M/s400/0319111328.jpg" style="border: 2px solid ; width: 300px; height: 400px;"></a> <a href="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_6gkPL0jmAKE/TYtvnpkjA3I/AAAAAAAALMM/G1iTV50epG4/s1600/windows-data.JPG"><img alt="" src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_6gkPL0jmAKE/TYtvnpkjA3I/AAAAAAAALMM/G1iTV50epG4/s400/windows-data.JPG" style="border: 2px solid ; width: 400px; height: 320px;"></a><br><br><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_6gkPL0jmAKE/TYtvqEn_LKI/AAAAAAAALMk/pX7gbGCk1zg/s1600/0319111301.jpg"><img alt="" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_6gkPL0jmAKE/TYtvqEn_LKI/AAAAAAAALMk/pX7gbGCk1zg/s400/0319111301.jpg" style="border: 2px solid ; width: 400px; height: 300px;"></a> <a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_6gkPL0jmAKE/TYtvrDPfQkI/AAAAAAAALMw/WlqpCnf_5uY/s1600/0319111302.jpg"><img alt="" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_6gkPL0jmAKE/TYtvrDPfQkI/AAAAAAAALMw/WlqpCnf_5uY/s400/0319111302.jpg" style="border: 2px solid ; width: 400px; height: 300px;"></a><br><br>As mentioned in the first post I'm wanting around $700 for this system. As can be seen from the photos it has some pretty extensive inside work with higher quality fans and the massive non-stock heatsink. The power supply is a modular from thermaltake, and yes I do have the modular cables not actually used in the chassis. They will ship with the computer. <br><br>The monitor is not included, but if somebody wants it, I'm looking for about $50 on the monitor. It has a resolution of 1280*1024 and only accepts D-SUB input. <br> <br>This particular unit has both Windows Vista Ultimate 64bit edition and Mepis Linux 11 Beta 3 64bit installed. The Microsoft installation disc and license key used for this computer are included in the sale price. <span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><br><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br><br><span style="font-weight: bold;">Athlon 64 6000+ / Geforce GTS 250</span><br><br><a href="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_6gkPL0jmAKE/TYtvttDkjlI/AAAAAAAALNg/ZyRvO52cyhI/s1600/0319111434.jpg"><img alt="" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_6gkPL0jmAKE/TYtvttDkjlI/AAAAAAAALNg/ZyRvO52cyhI/s400/0319111434.jpg" style="border: 2px solid ; width: 300px; height: 400px;"> </a><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_6gkPL0jmAKE/TYtvsiA1E4I/AAAAAAAALPY/rvg-L5ZPAWg/s1600/0319111349.jpg"><img alt="" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_6gkPL0jmAKE/TYtvsiA1E4I/AAAAAAAALPY/rvg-L5ZPAWg/s400/0319111349.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 300px; height: 400px;"></a><br><br><a href="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_6gkPL0jmAKE/TYtvokEC77I/AAAAAAAALMc/gwoVyheVIF4/s1600/windows-athlon64.JPG"><img alt="" src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_6gkPL0jmAKE/TYtvokEC77I/AAAAAAAALMc/gwoVyheVIF4/s400/windows-athlon64.JPG" style="border: 2px solid ; width: 400px; height: 226px;"></a><br><br><br><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span>For this computer I'm looking to get around $800. Like the Core 2 system this has upgraded main cooling and upgraded fans. It also uses a Thermaltake modular power supply, and yes the cables not used will be shipped with the computer. <br><br>As before the monitor is not included. I'm looking for around $100 for the monitor. Yes, I know that's bloody low for a 23" monitor, but it only does 1440*900, and the color balance is... not that great. <br><br>This particular unit has both Windows Vista Ultimate 32bit Editon and Mepis Linux 11 Beta 3 32bit installed. The Microsoft installation disc and license key used for this computer are included in the sale price. Yes, I do have another 64bit Vista Ultimate disc on hand. Yes I am open to dicussing shipping that instead of the 32bit disc.<br> <br><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br><br><span style="font-weight: bold;">Averatec 7100 Notebook</span></span><br><br>A surprise addition. I'm also selling this notebook:<br><br><a href="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_6gkPL0jmAKE/TYtvuByR7wI/AAAAAAAALNo/ZwziL083XIE/s1600/0323110005.jpg"><img alt="" src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_6gkPL0jmAKE/TYtvuByR7wI/AAAAAAAALNo/ZwziL083XIE/s640/0323110005.jpg" style="border: 0px solid ; width: 640px; height: 480px;"></a><br><br>It's an Averatec 7100 with a Turion64 X2 and an Nvidia Nforce Graphics chip. These things tend to go around <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=Averatech+7100&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=Averatec+7100&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=WRM&sa=X&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=ivns&source=univ&tbs=shop:1&tbo=u&ei=MzyMTdWgH42Ftge4pbWnDQ&ved=0CD8QrQQ&biw=1920&bih=988&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=631715c292afc9b7">$650 refurbished online</a>. I'm only wanting <span style="font-weight: bold;">$550</span> for this laptop.<br><br>First, this particular one has had it's memory upgraded to 2gb PC2 5300 mobile memory, and is packing a new-hard drive. That's all well and good. However, the battery is fried out. Even in power-save mode this thing will barely last 25 minutes, and that's with a bleeding edge linux kernel, brightness all the way down, and every power saving trick I know enabled. A new battery runs around $75 online before shipping. <br><br>In addition, because it has a new hard-drive, <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">this laptop has no Microsoft Windows Operating System Installed and will not ship with a Microsoft Windows Operating System Disc.<br> <br><span style="font-style: italic;"></span></span></span><span style="font-weight: bold;">This Laptop will only ship with Mepis Linux 11 Beta 3 Installed</span>.<br><br>For those interested in the back-story, Averatec does not ship their laptops with Microsoft Windows installation discs. Their solution to providing installations of Microsoft Windows Operating Systems is to utilize a recovery partition on the laptop's single hardrive, which doesn't really make a lot of sense for a laptop where the most likely problem a user will experience... <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">is physical hard-drive damage</span></span>. According to Averetec they don't ship an installation disc because of Microsoft's Licensing terms, and I wasn't willing to ante up the cost to purchase a recovery disc from Avertec. <br> <br> Again, for those interested in the computers, email me: <br />
<br />
<script language="javascript">
<!--
var part1 = "jason.frothingham";
var part2 = "gmail.com";
var part3 = "jason dot frothingham at gmail dot com";
document.write('<a href="mai' + 'lto:' + part1 + '@' + part2 + '">'); document.write(part3 + '</a>');
// -->
</script>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08951185953504736035noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4202507793705383029.post-43216515131420971652011-03-15T20:33:00.000-07:002011-03-15T20:33:53.129-07:00The situation... is desperateOkay, yes, I've been silent on this blog, yet again, for a really long time. The reason is... radically different. People who have seen my <a href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000030655840">facebook profile</a> already know what has happened, as well as readers on the City of Heroes Forums, Clockwork Mansion, and the Mepis Community forums. <br />
<br />
I went back to school.<br />
<br />
More importantly, I did not go back to school for anything tech related. I tried through most of 2010 to get hired on the merits of my tech expertise, and I got nowhere. So I chose to broaden my applicable skill-set and attend school to become a Pastry Chef. <br />
<br />
Since January I have been in Flordia attending the Notter School of Pastry Arts. Now, when I applied for the school, the financial aid office offered to help me establish funding to attend the school. 8 months of effective unemployment gave me pretty much nothing to work with, and for whatever reason the State of Georgia was not willing to cut unemployment checks for me. I never saw any money from the unemployment that I filed for last year, despite receiving confirmation letters that I was eligible for, and would get, unemployement benefits. <br />
<br />
Ultimately the financial aid office was able to establish a loan to cover the amount of tuition not covered by grants or scholarships. However, the school and I were unable to establish any loans to cover <b>LIVING</b> expenses. That's a story I do not really want to get into here. <br />
<br />
Since I've gotten down to Florida I've been applying pretty much everywhere. Staples, Borders, CompUSA, Publix, Williams Sonoma, M&M's store, Chick'Fil'A, T-mobilie, toys'r'us, Best Buy, Apple Store, and Zaxby's are just a few of the places that I've applied at. Chipolte Mexican Grill is doing a job fair of sorts tomorrow, I intend to be there. However, the only place I have had a response back from has been M&M's store, and I can't take that job because it's hours conflict with school.<br />
<br />
So, that brings me up to, well, now. I need money to cover food, rent, and power. As is my car is up for sale back in Georgia, but I don't know whether or not it will move by the end of the month. <br />
<br />
Immediately then, I'm placing two of my own systems up on the purchase block, as there is a chance THEY might move before the month is out. <br />
<br />
Those are:<br />
<br />
Intel Core 2 Duo<br />
Intel D975XBX Motherboard<br />
2gb DDR2<br />
RadeonHD 4580 - Crossfire X2<br />
Thermaltake Bach Media Chassis<br />
<br />
Atlhon64 6000<br />
Asus M4N82-Delux<br />
2gb DDR2<br />
Geforce GTS 250 - SLI X3<br />
<br />
Yes, I realize these aren't exactly the blazing best top of the line systems anymore. I'm also not sure where to price them either. Thing is, I've done up stuff like the power-supplies and cooling fans. Neither processor uses a stock heatsink. In terms of total power, they'll both still outrun everything in the $600-$800 market from Dell, HP, or Gateway. <br />
<br />
Ballpark figure, I'd like to pull around $700 for the Intel Core 2 Duo system. I'd like to see the Triple SLI system move for a bit more, around $800. I'm open to best offers under those. I'm really not in a position to say no. <br />
<br />
I'm not ready yet to sell either my I7 or Phenom II system, but hey, if you are interested in those systems, email me, ask about them, and we can work something out. Again, I'm not really in a position to say no to any sale right now. <br />
<br />
Beyond those systems, if anybody who reads this is in the Orlando area, or knows somebody in the Orlando area, who is looking for a tech or somebody to work in a kitchen, drop me an email. <br />
<br />
<script language="javascript">
<!--
var part1 = "jason.frothingham";
var part2 = "gmail.com";
var part3 = "jason dot frothingham at gmail dot com";
document.write('<a href="mai' + 'lto:' + part1 + '@' + part2 + '">'); document.write(part3 + '</a>');
// -->
</script><br />
<br />
Hopefully the link works,Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08951185953504736035noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4202507793705383029.post-24129690194966483672010-12-15T10:45:00.000-08:002010-12-15T10:45:27.050-08:00RadeonHD 6900 series launched<span style="font-size: 85%;"><span style="font-family: courier new;">Yes, I am aware that AMD launched the RadeonHD 6900 series today. Yes, I am aware they offer GTX 5xx performance at a far lower cost.<br />
<br />
No, I can't actually really give a good comment on them since I wasn't included in the pre-launch testing or press briefings. </span></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08951185953504736035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4202507793705383029.post-58509076848594319752010-12-13T23:53:00.000-08:002010-12-13T23:54:04.534-08:00Silent<span style="font-size: 85%;"><span style="font-family: courier new;">I realize that I've been relatively silent since the elections, which prompted somebody to email me asking if I had been admitted back into a hospital. Fortunately an unexpected hospital trip has not been part of my recent history. The short version of the events is that I've been sending out cover letters and resume's left and right trying to find a job, and the strain of a lack of regular employment is beginning to show. I'm often too tired, mentally, to come up with anything that I think anybody else would want to read. I have made almost no progress on Callaer, deleting entire chapters as nothing I wrote seemed to convey any sense of charisma or presence, reading as flat and dry as <i>Harry Potter</i> and <i>Twilight</i>. <br />
<br />
Somebody once asked me in the intervening weeks if I blamed my situation on Obama and his administration as so many other unemployed American Citizens do. The intent behind the question was to find out what my opinion was on Obama immediately performing a world-tour after the November elections, slagging off on the American Economic problems. My response was that I don't blame the Obama administration for anything. <br />
<br />
Around 30 years ago the United States was in a Cold War with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or USSR. The USSR was largely represented in international press by Russia and East Germany, presenting a very real day to day sobering reminder of the effects of socialism. The demise of the USSR and the destruction of the Berlin Wall gave the international press one of the biggest lucky breaks they could have ever hoped for. The fragmented nations were of no military threat to the United States, one of the primary reasons the international press had to keep covering the events in the USSR. Within a few short years, the effects of socialism were removed from the international public eye as the USSR and it's subjugated nations found themselves removed from the headlines. <br />
<br />
The lack of a visible day to day reference point for what Socalism accomplishes has allowed the political movement to take hold in the US, and the past several years have seen socalistic politicians like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Obama rise to power. Entire generations do not understand exactly why the political beliefs espoused by the Democrat party in the US are harmful to long-term economic stability or the growth of a country. There is a cultural disconnect that with the internet and it's access to vast historical resources, should not be occurring. <br />
<br />
For many Americans the rise of socialism and big government has long been obvious. Liberal Democrats have used a variety of tactics to force their policies upon American Citizens, often turning to the courtroom to shove policies through after the voting public shot down those policies in open votes. Seriously, go read Judge Dierker's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-Tolerance-Sitting-Silence-Judicial/dp/0307339203?ie=UTF8&tag=thehomofaverg-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Tyranny of Tolerance</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=thehomofaverg-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0307339203" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important;" width="1" />. The abuse of the court system has seen the socalistic agenda white-whashed in the eyes of American Students. <br />
<br />
Ergo, when halfway through Bush Jr's last term, when a Democratic Congress was voted into power, many Americans saw the writing on the wall. This leads up to another cultural disconnect over who actually controls political power in the United States. <br />
<br />
When the <a href="http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html">Founding Fathers of the United States signed the Constitution</a>, they did something that was inconceivable to every other nation on the planet. The Founding Fathers gave political power to the people. Under the Constitution all of the Political Power to make laws and govern the people was given unto the people. The office of the President was largely a ceremonial office, one that Congress or the people could bypass. <br />
<br />
The sheer brilliance of the United States founding government was largely lost on other nations. Writers such as Karl Marx, and politicians such as Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin, couldn't understand what the U.S. founding fathers had conceived and implemented, never realizing the power unto the people had already been recognized and established. <br />
<br />
Think about the structure of the US Government for a minute. Name any other country in the world where the President, Prime Minister, or Premier is not the final say in political matters? Name another country where it is possible for the people to ratify and vote into constitutional law changes without the consent of the Congress or the President? <br />
<br />
The international press, and for that matter the national press as well, don't realize that the US President is not the final authority in anything. Everything the President does has congressional oversight, and anything the President carries out can be halted by Congress. <br />
<br />
This is why I don't blame the Obama Administration for the current state of anything. The office of the President in the United States is ultimately not-responsible for the actions they commit. If the Presidential Administration does something that is harmful to the country, it's the fault of the Congress of the United States for not stepping in. Obama and his Administration are, in a very real sense, powerless without the backing of the US Congress. Given that the liberal democrats have been in control of the US Congress for the past 4 years, it shouldn't be too hard to realize who the fault belongs to. <br />
<br />
The fact is, the situation that lead up to the initial economic collapse of the housing market was created by Liberal Democrats forcing their agenda onto banks and lending companies. The fact is, the economic situation now was created by the actions taken by Liberal Democrats over the past couple of decades. Such collapses are what socialistic policies cause. Entire countries have been rendered bankrupt with citizens brawling in the streets over rotten loaves of bread because of socialism. Seriously, not a joke. Please go look up the history of the USSR. <b>Not exactly what you would call a BIG SECRET.</b><br />
<br />
Even though the Liberal Democrats are responsible for the economic woes of the country, for the state of the national budget, and for the train wreck that has been the Obama Administration, I don't hold them personally responsible for my situation. I made the choice to stand up for myself, and confront somebody who was breaking the law over their actions. That choice cost me my job. <br />
<br />
I also have to recognize that at some point, I chose to specialize too much. I am not a coder, and more than once over the past couple of months, I've had serious job offers from companies looking for coders experienced in C++, Perl, Java, .NET, or so on. I've had to explain that I don't write computer code. Just because I fix computers doesn't automatically mean I can write a script to switch between embedded pictures on a mouse rollover. Just because I can tell you what that exotic error code means and the appropriate files to delete or modify to restore your desktop does not mean I can create a website page leveraging Adobe Flash. <br />
<br />
As you can see from this post, this is basically why I haven't been writing on a regular basis. I'm just way too stressed out to make the points I want to make flow into each other, and I'm hitting random hot-points and descending into pointless examples upon pointless examples. <br />
<br />
I'm actually beginning to feel like Patricia Tannis.</span></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08951185953504736035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4202507793705383029.post-26225878972438112702010-11-03T12:46:00.000-07:002010-11-03T12:46:15.946-07:00Will the economy recover?Yes, I've been silent for the past several months. Mostly it's because I'm still hunting for a steady job and the lack of a steady paycheck has wrecked merry havoc with my capabilities to express complete and coherent thoughts as most of what I've attempted to write has degenerated into meaningless rambles. The type of written entry that I would place on Live-Journal behind a friend cut and then link to if I thought it had any substance or overall point.<br />
<br />
For the first time in months, my spirits have been lifted. While it was not with a call offering a job-interview, or a call stating I had landed a job, it was with the November 2nd elections. As a country America peeled away the wool that the liberal democrats had pulled over their eyes, sending record numbers of unknown and untested political candidates backed only by the <i>Taxed Enough Already</i> party into the mansions of State governments and the halls of the nations Congressional Chambers. <br />
<br />
Over the past two years the liberal-democrat political machine has been hiking taxes and destroying the ability of small business's to operate in a fiscally fit manner. Case in point, there is an upcoming tax that will start in January that will raise Small Business Tax by 7%. From my own point of view as a tech worker seeking employment, I've witnessed the small-business market drive itself into a state of hibernation in an attempt to whether the financial storm of a business-incompetent political party. <br />
<br />
Now small business's, my bread and butter for employment, have hope that the high taxes will be repealed. There is hope that the unpopular and fiscally unsound health doctrines of the liberal democrats will be thrown in the gutter where they belong. There is hope that outright political non-sense such as needing to pass a bill to find out what's in a bill has seen its death. <br />
<br />
The victory of the conservatives and the T.E.A. party is a bitter-sweet one for me. While I now have more hope of finding and landing a steady job, hopefully doing what I do best, which is writing or fixing computers, there is also an odd sense that <i>it didn't have to be this way.</i> One event that stands out to me is my encounter with the web-comic PvP Online. <br />
<br />
During the run-up to the 2006 elections the head of a small business in the comic took a pro-Obama stance. Something that was so out of place I actually emailed the author of the comic, Scott Kurtz, over why his character was acting out of character. Given that the in-coming owner of the small business didn't change his tune, it was clear that Scott Kurtz didn't feel his character was out of character. At the very least it was obvious that Scott Kurtz did not understand either political party, or the history of the political parties, or the objectives of the political parties.<br />
<br />
In fact, that was actually a problem with a lot of voters in 2006. Despite having access to the Internet and it's records of party speeches, party theories, party platforms, party voting records, and so on, many voters simply did not comprehend what the political parties stood for. Unfortunately it took 2 years of bad legislation and political incompetence for many Americans to realize just what socialism was, and what the goals of the liberal democrat party were. It didn't matter that one just needed to look at countries over in Europe to see what high tax rates and socialistic political agendas could do to a countries economy and ability to fend for itself. Too many Americans needed to learn the hardway just what Obama and his ilk stood for and worked for. <br />
<br />
One of the questions being raised in this election season is whether or not the lessons learned will be remembered in the next election season. Will enough American's remember how Obama and the liberal democrats tried to destroy the American Economy? Is it actually possible to recover from the damage already wrought by the hands of an out-of-control socialist agenda? <br />
<br />
I don't know. In 2006 I made the mistake of assuming that enough Americans would have the sense to actually research what each political party stood for and what each political party was capable of doing. I failed to account for the number of people who simply wanted to be in the history books for putting a <i>colored</i> president in office, regardless of the long term disaster it would cause. <br />
<br />
My hope is that yes, America will have a long-bitter memory of the destruction that a liberal-democrat government can cause in such a short amount of time.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08951185953504736035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4202507793705383029.post-47787688685472163752010-09-09T14:07:00.000-07:002010-09-09T14:07:25.586-07:00Gearbox Community Manager: Yes I did send a resume<span style="font-size: 85%;"><span style="font-family: courier new;">Couple of quick notes. Yes. I did see that Gearbox was looking for a new community manager on their homepage. Yes, I did send them my resume. <br />
<br />
No idea if anything will actually come of it... given that I've racked up some near 318 hours in Borderlands though, I'd love to be on the side of getting paid to tell everybody how awesome it is.</span></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08951185953504736035noreply@blogger.com0