Episode #1

This week I decided to start doing a podcast.  This podcast covers current events, news, politics, weird news, and worthless news - news that shouldn't be considered news.  I hope you enjoy it!

Podcast Powered By Podbean

Podcast Powered By Podbean

Download this episode (right click and save)


Podcast Outline/Notes:

Week in Headlines

• Obama Gun Control http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/16/obama-to-announce-gun-control-proposals-shortly/

• NRA reacts to Gun Control http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/nra-obama_n_2488649.html

La Pierre "I warned you this day was coming and now it’s here," LaPierre wrote. "This is the fight of the century and I need you on board with NRA now more than ever. My strength, and the strength of our entire NRA organization comes from you and your strong commitment to our membership...

"The NRA sat in on a White House meeting that was sold to the public as an ‘open discussion’ about how to improve school safety," he continued. "But that was a dirty lie. They didn’t listen to gun owners’ concerns … they didn’t consider any real solutions on how we can keep our kids safe. Instead Barack Obama, Joe Biden and their gun ban allies in Congress only want to BLAME you, VILIFY you, BULLY you, and STRIP you of your Second Amendment freedoms."

Wrote LaPierre, "Right now, they’re steamrolling ahead with legislation that would ban your guns, register your ammunition purchases, and even force you to register the firearms you already own with Obama’s anti-gun bureaucrats."

Most of the actions are reinforcing existing laws and expanding mental health issues which are things the NRA has been calling for.  Including armed gaurds in schools which Obama said there will be funding for schools who want it.  So he gave them everything they asked for.

NRA released a game for smartphones to shoot any kind of gun and made it avaiable for 4 years+, yet say guns in video games are contributing to gun violence?

"What's in the Box?" - Weird news

• Woman got stuck between two buildings - http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ore-woman-trapped-buildings-article-1.1241165 3:45 AM between parking garage and apartment complex.  stuck 4 hours suspended above the ground
• Google denies running over donkey http://www.digitalspy.com/odd/news/a451773/google-denies-running-over-donkey.html
• Prankster Registers As Obama - http://www.heraldextra.com/news/weird-news/weird-news---detective-prankster-registered-as-obama-in/article_2a8558b4-6027-11e2-b5ad-001a4bcf887a.html 
  
  Roskovski said county elections records showed nobody tried to vote using the bogus registration card, though filling it out falsely could be a felony — perjury — or a misdemeanor of making a false unsworn statement.
  The handwritten card also lists the president's birth date — 8/4/61 — though whoever wrote it put '81 as the birth year before scratching it out. Roskovski said it's possible the prankster was born in the '80s and used the wrong digit before realizing the mistake.
  The address listed on the card used to belong to a former dormitory at Slippery Rock University, a state-owned school in the county, which is one reason Roskovski assumes it was filled out as a prank. Another reason: The voter's listed phone number was 555-5555.
  Because the card is from 2008, county elections officials have no recollection of receiving it or entering it into a statewide database of registered voters, which is where the last name is spelled with an 'n,' Roskovski said. He assumes the card was processed in good faith by an elections worker who was busy with a large number of newly registered voters.
• Woman holds her own heart after transplant - 
  
  “[Penny] is holding her own heart. She has survived cancer and crippling heart failure and never lost hope,” Kelsey wrote along with the image.
  “She wanted to keep it but they wouldn’t let her! I said the same thing. It had to be cremated but she kept the ashes,” she continued.
  
  Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/485875/woman-holds-own-heart-after-successful-transplant-in-viral-photo/#1k5m88VZVMj2tv2s.99 
• Man gets run over by own car after dog hits accelorator - http://www.eurweb.com/2013/01/bizarro-news-man-run-over-by-his-own-car-after-his-dog-hits-accelerator/

Sports

• Lance Armstrong - used steroids, stripped of medals 
• Fake girlfriend dies of leukemiahttp://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/17/16564736-9-baffling-questions-in-the-manti-teo-girlfriend-hoax?lite

Manti Te'o online and on phone relationship, according to Notre Dame he never met her in person or video chat through services like Skype.  Then died of leukemia.  Then while Te'o was at an ESPN awards ceremony he recieved a call from her: her voice, her number.  He was so embarrassed he kept quiet for weeks before saying anything, and Notre Dame hired private investigators to look into it.  Was he in on a prank, was he the victim of a hoax? Who knows.

Politics

• gov Perry says prayer is the solution to gun violence
• Santorum doesn't want to “make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/01/03/396428/santorums-racist-welfare-rant/?mobile=nc

It’s hard to say which part of the story is stranger — that Santorum spontaneously derided poor black people in response to a question about foreign money or his explanation of why he did it

CBS points out that only nine percent of Iowans on food stamps are black — and 84 percent are white. Nationally, 39 percent of welfare recipients are white, 37 percent are black, and 17 percent are Hispanic. So Santorum’s decision to single out black welfare recipients plays right into insulting — and inaccurate — stereotypes of the kind of people some voters might expect to want a “handout.”

"Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, your opinion man"
Gun Control - if US gov't attacked its citizens we're dead anyway.  armored vehicles, grenades, RPGs, artillery, drone strikes, bazookas

"I don't care!"  - Worthless News 

• Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson moving to Paris to rekindle their flame
• Kim Kardashian says "pregnancy advice can't help her"
• Pirates of the Caribbean 5 announced with J.  Depp

Controlling Gun Control

Had any talks about gun control recently?  I have.  Have you seen people suddenly hate you for not taking their side?  Crazy, huh?  Gun control is a sore subject for everyone, and it's a sure-fire way to make enemies. I've seen mostly two arguments: on one hand, you have the argument that our country was formed on the very basis that citizens have the right to protect themselves from their government and therefore have the right to own guns;  on the other, you have people saying there is no reason to own a gun used in combat by soldiers.


I read this in an article from CNN:

‎"Outspoken gun-control advocate New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg called the (NRA post-Newtown) statement "a shameful evasion of the crisis facing our country... instead of offering solutions to a problem they have helped create, they offered a paranoid, dystopian vision of a more dangerous and violent America where everyone is armed and no place is safe," he said. "Enough. As a country, we must rise above special interest politics."

The NRA spokesperson LaPierre gave a frightening speech.  He painted a "paranoid, dystopian vision" for sure.  He made it sound as though we were living in a post-apocalyptic world where everyone on our block just found out we have the only surviving box of twinkies, and they're all coming to gun us down to get it.  

Now I don't believe that we live in the crazy, paranoid society that he does.  I do understand the point that he, in my opinion, failed to correctly make.  That we are entitled to the means of protection for ourselves, family, and property.  If some crazy person breaks into your home and steals your stuff, and threatens your family, I believe you have every right to stand up to them.  And that if a tyrannical government ever arises, we should have the means to protect our freedoms.  That was the purpose of the second amendment: it gave Americans the right to form a militia.  But in the last five years, the Supreme Court has ruled that it means personal ownership of guns, not militia.

Going back to two of the most common arguments I hear: no reason to have military style weapons and the right to protect oneself from a tyrannical government.   If we have the right to own military style weapons to defend ourselves, shouldn't we be entitled to the same access to weapons as the government?  Meaning, shouldn't we be allowed to purchase Apache helicopters, bazookas, predator drones, and RPGs?  Because if I understand it correctly, a private citizen can't own an F-16 or artillery like the military has.  We don't have tanks.  So if the government decided to attack its own citizens, owning an AK-47 or AR-15 isn't going to do much when the artillery and drone strikes begin.  They aren't going to be effective on a tank.  So we're pretty much screwed anyway.  If there are already weapons that the government has that citizens don't, what's wrong with saying, "you can't get these ones either"?

The NRA says that violent video games and movies are to blame.  And yet, countries like Japan consume more video games each year than the US.  T hey're playing the same games.  Grand Theft Auto, Left 4 Dead, Mortal Kombat.  And they watch American movies.  And yet, last year, Japanese men and women did not feel the need to kill over 10,000 of each other like Americans did.  In fact, you can count on one hand how many gun related deaths occurred in Japan.


Do violent video games and movies warp young minds and create thoughtless killers?  I doubt it.  Do they contribute to the degradation of the perception of life?  Probably.  But what can you do? Go into every American's home and take away their movies and video games?  Ban the production of them?  Isn't that infringing on someone's first amendment right?  

Now, I understand that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible, law abiding citizens.  I understand that stricter laws will only punish the law abiding citizens, and a black market will be created for newly banned guns.  I understand that it is impossible to seize every military-style gun in homes across the country.  I understand that crazy people will find a way to get a weapon and wreak havoc on society no matter the laws. I also understand that everyone is considered a "responsible" gun owner until their kid finds their gun laying around and shoots his/her friend with it. So what are common sense measures that can realistically be done to bring down the gun violence in America?  

I don't know.  I don't think anyone really knows.  But isn't it worth trying something? Anything?  Hasn't enough American blood been spilt?  President Obama this week gave 23 actions that he intends to put in action to fight gun violence.  Most of the actions were about enforcing laws that already exist and reminding people that they exist.  Ironically, the NRA criticized Obama for ignoring all of their ideas they gave him after he did many of the things that the NRA has been calling for for years.  LaPierre believes "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun."  Perhaps once it's escalated to that point, yes, he's right.  But was anything done to maybe prevent the bad guy from getting a gun, or from getting so upset that he reached for that gun?

Only time will tell if any of Obama's solutions will work.  I personally would say that increasing spending on education is worth a try.  Have better training for teachers to spot bullying in schools, or anger issues in students. Employ more school counselors.  Have programs that help children deal with anger and emotions.  Since parents are apparently not teaching their children about action and consequences and the difference between right and wrong, train teachers better at instilling students with a moral compass.  Every time spending cuts need to be made, education is one of the first programs to get passed through the wood chipper.  How about we cut back on all the wars we're raging and use that money to teach kids about peace.  We're already paying taxes for that, why not get a better return on investment? 

Post-Election Blues

So if you've been following this blog, you already know my feelings about the results.  I'm relieved.  On facebook I had complained and argued with people about the election, the platforms, the candidates, and fighting the pro-Romney propaganda that 80% of my friends have been posting.  It got so out of control that at one point a woman actually wrote to my wife and told her that she was no longer going to be her friend on facebook anymore because she "didn't support socialism" and that some day my wife "would regret voting for Obama".

 This is my response  to that statement.  First, what is socialism?  Webster says :

1. Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods


2. a: system of society or group living in which there is no private property

    b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3. a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


She was, of course, referring to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) as socialism.  It's a very complicated law, and there isn't really much else I can do but oversimplify it by boiling it down to it's essence.  The law says everyone must have insurance.  You may keep your private insurance if you currently have it, but if you don't have it, you are now required by law to have it.  If you didn't have it because of pre-existing conditions that barred you from obtaining it, pre-existing conditions are discriminatory and against the law.  If you don't want private insurance, you may sign up for what I'm sure will be a really sh***y  plan from the government. If you cannot afford insurance, the premiums will be adjusted so that you can afford it. If you are so dirt poor that paying for insurance is above your cost of living, you will qualify for medicaid.

Sure, in theory, saying that everyone must have health insurance is a socialistic philosophy.  Everyone is equal in that sense.  But if you look at the execution of the law it does not meet the definition at all.

1. The government does not own the means of production.  Doctors and nurses are not government employees.  The government is not the sole provider of insurance; as evidenced by multiple insurance agencies that exist and will continue to exist after the plan is fully implemented.

2. a: You will still own your own home, car, and even your private insurance.  You can even change to another private insurance if you want.
    b. The government is now saying you have to have insurance.  If you take out a loan on a car, the bank requires you to have insurance for the car.  The government is now saying if you are alive, you need to have insurance.  It's in your best interest to have it.  If you are poor or middle class and get sick or are in an accident, you may never have the money you need for healthcare costs in your lifetime. 60% of all bankruptcies are healthcare related,  Healthcare costs are outrageously high and growing every year.  Why you would not want insurance is something I will not understand.  But according to definition 2 b., Obamacare does not equal socialism.

3. Do you really believe we are in a transition into communism?  Do you see the redistribution of wealth?  Oh, you might say, there are going to be higher taxes on the rich to pay for government programs for the poor!  That's not how it works.  Redistribution of wealth would be that at the end of the day, the money you've made that exceeds the standard of living dictated by government, would be taken from you and given to people who did not make enough to meet the standard of living.  And by the way, your employer is the government.

From what I've seen and heard, no one really understands what the word "socialism" means.  They know that it's a dirty word, so they use it to describe what they don't understand.   I don't understand why most Republicans don't want poor and sick people to get the healthcare they need.  I guess that makes me socialist.

One of the things that I liked most about this election, was Karl Rove was caught with his metaphoric pants down.  With over a billion dollars spent on the election, his superpacs gave Karl a minuscule return on investment.  In fact, according to NPR,  of all the money spent on the presidential election this year, less than 2% was supporting the candidate that actually won the election.  Less than 2%.  That's a big win for America.  It proves that democracy still works, and apparently there are still people out there that can think for themselves and are not persuaded by TV ads.  I can't help but laugh at every story I see come out about how millionaires and billionaires are gunning for Rove.  Here's a guy who was even called out on FOX news the night of the election for doing the kind of math that republican's do to "make themselves feel better."  He is so much in denial that he argued for a good twenty minutes that Ohio was not lost in the election before slinking off into the shadows to wet his pants.  Unfortunately, Rove made millions himself from this election by collecting transactional fees from the billionaires he misled.  In a way that's actually kind of cool.  Karl Rove robbing the rich to stuff his own fat pockets.  Hat's off to you Karl, you're a true capitalist.  An opportunity arose and you grabbed it by the horns.


Moving on to my last topic, this is something else that's been bothering me lately.  Look up at the graphic I posted above of the U.S. of A by electoral votes.  I saw a lot of complaining about how if most of the US is red, how did Obama get elected?  Well, for those of you who have never left your red state, let me tell you.  It's because states are allocated electoral votes based on population. The US census on July 1, 2011, estimated that there was a population of 568,158 people living in Wyoming.  The same census reported the population of New York (state) at 19,465,197.  New York is much more densely populated, though it is significantly smaller than Wyoming.  For those of you who understand math, New York has more people than Wyoming.  Wouldn't it make sense that New York counts more than Wyoming in elections because there are more people?  It's really pretty easy.  Don't strain your brain thinking about it.

The news has been reporting a lot of redistricting as well to suppress votes and swing elections.  Guess what, Obama also won the popular vote, so no matter how you divide it, you'll at least know that the populace didn't choose your candidate.  Get over yourselves.  

My Take On Denver Presidential Debate

Winners and losers are subjective. I'm not going to say who I think won or lost, you can decide that based on your criteria of "points totaled" or however you do it.  I'm going to try from an objective point of view on what happened last night.

Romney came out of the gate at a full sprint.  President Obama seemed to lean against the gate and yawn the entire "race".  As one person on Twitter put it, Obama seemed like someone trying desperately to end a phone conversation.


What Romney had going for him: 

• A previously unseen amount of aggressiveness.  
• He fought for time to speak, and fought for the topics that were addressed.  
• He single-handedly controlled the subject matter for the majority of the debate, speaking only on topics that he wanted to talk about, and on his terms. 
• He opened up about a few topics he previously has refused to address or awkwardly dodged answering.  
• He looked at Obama while responding and while listening.
• He didn't wear a spray tan to this event.
• He mastered a very good condescending look.
• As Frederick E. Allen from Forbes said, " Mitt Romney "may have said things that were clearly untrue ... but he said them convincingly."

What Romney had against him:

• Romney has never been as far right as his party wants him to be, but last night he moved even further to left to appear as a moderate -- which according to his policies, he is not.  
• He claimed things last night about medicare and social security that he has opposed leading up to the debate. 
• He backs his statistics with studies performed by his campaign managers and denies the veracity of non-partisan independent studies that contradict him.  
• He continues to claim that his budget accounts for raising revenue even when independent studies prove that it does not add up.  He can clearly can count to five, but it appears that numbers higher than that will require a tutor. 
• Romney continued to be ambiguous by saying I will create jobs, I will balance the budget, but not saying how.  
• He claims to care for elderly and the poor, but they make up over half of the 47% that he said take no responsibility for their lives and that its not his "job to care for those people".  
• Romney also spent a lot of time attacking the president and his policies more than he did talking about what he plans to do differently.  
• Romney was perhaps too aggressive, cutting of the moderator and his opponent repeatedly which made him come across as inconsiderate and a bully.
• Got really worked up at times and spoke so fast he stumbled over his words and kept talking for the sake of talking and not saying anything of value 

What President Obama had going for him:

• Honestly, not much.  
• President Obama did not spend the majority of his time attacking Romney for his plans the way Romney attacked him.  
• He was very civil and respectful, and did not cut Romney off
• Only cut of Jim once
• Didn't say he'd fire Jim or Big Bird.

What President Obama had against him:

• President Obama pointed out the holes in Romney's policies and the ambiguous statements he had previously made, but he did not call Romney out on his contradictions to previous stances during the debate.  
• He hardly looked at Romney throughout the debate.  
• He answered Romney's statements by addressing the moderator and not Romney.  
• He refused to look at Romney when speaking or listening.  
• He looked down at his notes as if he was nervous or bored.  He did not seem interested or prepared to answer Romney's allegations.  
• The fact that it was his 20th wedding anniversary probably played a minor role in his performance, though no one can blame that entirely for his poor performance 
• Obama was never a good debater, he does best when he can carefully structure thoughts without time constraints to clearly articulate his thoughts.

A Lesson On Language

It's been on my mind for awhile now.  I hear things every day, and I'm sure you do too, that make me scratch my head and wonder, "did you just say what I think you said?  Did I hear that correctly?"  I'm astounded by some of the things that come out of people's mouths.

Here's one, the misuse of the word "literally".  It used to be an antonym for "metaphorically", but has morphed into a synonym.

• If you literally "cried your eyes out", hats off to you. That's quite the feat. Eyes are roughly the size of golf balls, so to squeeze them out of your face must have been exhilarating. How did  you get them back in?

• "I literally got my heart ripped out." Oh, really? Indiana Jones style, huh? Lucky for you all your veins and arteries were kept intact so all you needed were a few stitches and an asprin, right? I mean, that could have ended REALLY badly for you.
• "I literally jumped out of my skin."  I had a hermit crab that went through the molting process once, call me next summer when you're about to start again.  I'd love to see this.

• "The president can literally change the direction of the world."  Let's make Utah subtropical.   Also, let's get more daylight on Christmas.  Come on Obama, FOCUS. 

I also hear the abuse of the word "epic".  Websters says " extending beyond the usual or ordinary especially in size or scope".  Let me put this into perspective for you.

• Beowulf defeating Grendel was epic. Finding half a poptart in your backpack was not. 

• Gandalf single-handedly slaying the Balrog was epic.  Having a quiet night at home eating ice cream and catching up on Real Housewives of New Jersey -- not so much.

• Jason beheading the hydra and stealing the golden fleece was epic. Finding a misspelled word on a milk carton was not.

• Perseus slicing off the head of Medusa was epic.  Standing at the bus stop eating a soft pretzel -- wait, tell me more about that soft pretzel.  I need all the facts to make an informed decision.

The word "awesome" means inspiring, astounding, miraculous. A solar eclipse is awesome.  Buying half priced donuts at closing time is not.

"Ironic", as my friend James pointed out, does not mean "coincidental".   Irony is when you say, "Hey, wouldn't it be funny if that guy walking down the street suddenly fell through a manhole?" and then right after that he gets hit by a trolley.

Last of all, have you heard people say "I might could"? You might -- or you could.  If you "might could" do something,  I'll tell you what will definitely happen. Your ambiguity will make my head explode. Literally. It will be epic.

Voter ID Laws Reminiscent of Jim Crow Laws

Lately there has been a lot of talk from the conservative media about voter fraud concerns, and how illegal immigrants in the US are going to reelect Obama unless they are stopped.  This has created a demand from the public that the government crack down on voting laws.  Interestingly enough, the Republican National Lawyer Association has found less than 400 cases of voting fraud in the last ONE HUNDRED YEARS.  Statistically speaking, that is less than 1% of votes cast each year and does not affect results at all.

The problem with the proposed voter ID laws has been embodied in the recent legislation passed in Pennsylvania.  Take Vivitte Applewhite for example, a 93 year old woman who has voted in nearly every election for the past 60 years. She marched with Martin Luther King, Jr. and now has become ineligible to vote.  She fought for equality as a US citizen for her right to vote, and now it has been taken away from her by the same type of discriminatory legislation she fought against with Dr. King.  This time, it's not because of the color of her skin, but because statistically she is more likely to vote for Obama than for Romney.  

The Jim Crow laws were passed in the late 1800s and continued through the mid 1900s.  They allowed for states to administer literacy tests and collect poll taxes which would disqualify minority groups from casting their vote.  The tests were not administered to everyone, were not graded equally, and were not standardized.  The poll taxes were put in place mainly to disqualify black voters, but also poor whites. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 made poll taxes and literacy tests illegal, abolishing what was left of the Jim Crow laws.  Pennsylvania's  new legislation aims to disqualify voters in the same way that the Jim Crow laws did, but this time it is to disqualify many who may vote in opposition to interests of Pennsylvanian Republican leaders like Mike Turzai and Tom Corbett. 

Mike Turzai openly admitted that by passing new voter ID laws, it “is going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania." Nearly 720,000 LEGAL citizens immediately lost their right to vote the day the legislation was signed.  Another nearly 1.5 million people are at risk of losing their ability to vote.

In a recent article by Juan Williams of FOX News, I read this:

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University estimates that more than 5 million Americans could be prevented from voting this November. They estimate that one in ten Americans do not have the necessary identification.  

Their latest Brennan report shows that more than 10 million eligible voters live “more than 10 miles from their nearest state ID-issuing office.” Many of these voters do not have public transportation readily available to them and many of the offices that issue the IDs are only open during weekdays for limited hours when most people are working.
The report also says that copies of birth certificates needed to get these ID scans cost between as much as $25. It shows how marriage licenses, which are required for women whose birth certificates only show their maiden name, can cost up to $20. Adjusted for inflation, those fees are more than the poll tax in many Southern states during the Jim Crow era. Poll taxes have historically been used to disenfranchise minorities and poor people.

I've heard people say, "How hard is it to get a state ID?" Well, for poor people, it's hard because you don't have time, transportation, or money to purchase any documents you may have lost.  And then you have to wait for those purchased documents to get to your house to go back and register for your ID.  It is a sure-fire way of eliminating the illegal vote, if it exists, but it also eliminates the poor working man vote.  And that is not something Dr. King would stand for.

See http://articles.cnn.com/2012-08-06/opinion/opinion_hair-dianis-voting-rights_1_pennsylvania-photo-id-new-voter-id-law-turnout-and-registration

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/03/gop-fictional-voter-fraud-charges-aim-to-keeping-democrats-from-voting/

Passing the Buck Since 1994

I read a very interesting article about a letter faxed to an old employee of Bain Capital, signed by Mittens himself.  He claims he didn't cause the layoff of this employee and the shut down of the entire business he worked for because, he had "left Bain in 1994" and so was not responsible at all for what happened.  Sound familiar?

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-21/read-the-fax-romney-sent-to-a-laid-off-worker



And apparently the guy has a whole box of stuff he's kept (against his wife's wishes because of the clutter) that details a lot of stuff that happened while he worked  under Bain's watchful care.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-02-23/mitt-romneys-box-of-kryptonite

If You're Upset About The Quote "If you've got a business...you didn't build that", Then You Must Be A Moron

You've seen it, I'm sure, the "If you've got a business...you didn't build that" Obama quote. It's plastered all over Facebook and more than likely, in your inbox. You've probably even re-shared it with your friends, enraged by the audacity of our president to make such a condescending claim. But did you read or hear the rest of his speech? That quote, in context, is clearly not the message depicted in two sentences:

"There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires."

The point he's making isn't that small business owners don't exist or that they don't deserve the credit for being successful. In fact, he said the opposite, "we succeed because of our individual initative". If you want to make something happen, it's up to you to make it happen.  If you're successful, you should be proud of your success.  The point he's making is that there were people in your life who helped you get where you are today. Either you went to school and learned how a business works, you had a mentor, you had people who invested money into your start-up business, you had parents who taught you, you read books, etc. No one is successful without having the knowledge to get there, and no one is born with knowledge in their brain of how to start a business. It is learned through study or experience. Someone wrote the textbook that you read, or taught you how it's done. 


You cannot wake up one day and invent quantum physics without having studied or been taught the underlying principles that allow you to arrive at the conclusion. Maybe it was Einstein's teacher who told him he would never amount to anything that pushed him to be inquisitive, fueled with creativity, and broadened his horizons just to prove his teacher wrong.  He wasn't born with the theory of relativity in his head, there were people and prior knowledge out there that aided him in the discovery that ultimately, with his individual initiative, reached. 

By posting a meme like that you are displaying your own ignorance. It shows that you, just like FOX and CNN, only read the first line of a report and make false judgments, or like a million other people on Facebook, you can't think for yourself. I don't care if you like Obama, or Romney, or Ron Paul; HAVE AN ORIGINAL THOUGHT. If you have such a strong opinion about a topic, you had better know the topic before you preach it. 

Just because I disagree with what you may believe does not mean that I think you're wrong. If you feel strongly about something, wonderful, tell me why you believe that so strongly. If you do not have a logical explanation with real facts to support your belief, than you make it very difficult for me to respect you or your opinion. I can't respect your insistence on having a voice when you insist on being an uniformed puppet of propaganda. 

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts.
Besides, this speech has been given before:

Obituary for Eh, Steve?

Eh, Steve? (2010 - 2012) passed away peacefully in his sleep July 15, 2012. Survived by Jake, Hannah, and his neighbor Dennis the Hermit Crab. Eh, Steve? lived in his small aquarium located above a rolltop desk in Jake's bedroom. Eh, Steve? was friendly and inviting to everyone, and loved to have company. Whenever someone walked into the room, he swam happily over to greet them.

Eh, Steve? enjoyed tutoring Jake in such subjects as accounting, corporate finance, statistics, and business law. He enjoyed listening to music, and his favorite band was Jimmy Eat World. He loved life, and he loved his friends. Eh, Steve bravely battled a common fish disease for over a year, with dry peeling scales and torn fins. He responded positively to medication that successfully restored his fins to their natural length and beauty, but ultimately could not conquer the illness or the side affects of the treatment.

Eh, Steve?, no fish has, nor will ever be loved as you were. You made the sun shine on a rainy day, and warmed our hearts in the dark of night. On behalf of those of us privileged to have shared the past year and a half with you, you will be greatly missed.

The Problem With Today's News

"The media's the most powerful entity on Earth.  They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power.  Because they control the minds of the masses." Malcom X

"A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant and the crazy crazier. " H. L. Mencken

Last Thursday I witnessed what news networks are really all about: being the first to report, regardless if the facts are there.  I don't doubt that each network had prepared days in advance multiple different stories and scenarios to begin with, and as the facts came in, would tailor their stories to the facts.  But the Supreme Court issued a document nearly 150 pages long explaining the ruling, so how could anyone decipher the complexities of the bill and its explanation of existence in less than a day?

I personally have lost all faith in news networks.  Too often we forget that the news, like sitcoms, is driven by ratings, advertising, and feedback from focus groups.  Each network has some kind of angle to every story, because  "good television" is more important than honest straightforward facts.  "Good television" allows for opinion to be masqueraded as fact.  

Networks know they can play on our competitive nature because "good television" evokes emotion in the viewer.  No matter what happens in Washington, you will turn on the news to see a "win for the Republicans today" or "a devastating blow to the Republican party" depending on the channel.  Thursday was a montage of contradicting statements of whether Obama's campaign hung in the balance or if he would gain momentum, depending on the each channel's chosen side of the political spectrum.  It's almost as if there is an invisible scoreboard of victories and losses that drive the stories that are aired like a countdown to the superbowl. Chalking up wins or a losses skews the way Americans view current events.

The media  also plays on our innate sense of justice and injustice.  When a crime is committed the villains and victims are immediately identified by the networks.  The recent case of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman comes to mind.  Depending on which channel you watch, Zimmerman was a racist, cold-blooded killer, or Martin was a dangerous hoodlum who had it coming.  The only people who know what transpired that night are Martin, Zimmerman, and God, and yet Americans pretend to know "what really happened."  And before you know it, what the murder case is "really about" is racism, class, and status.

Casey Anthony, Amanda Knox, and O.J. Simpson are good examples of media villains.  Blood for blood was demanded by the reporters, but in a court of law there was not enough evidence to convict any of them.  By digging up enough information to create a colorful past, the media convinced viewers that these lowlifes were definitely capable of murder.  Nobody knew who Casey Anthony or Amanda Knox were, but over night they were hated by all America because we were convinced they are murderers.

I'm all for freedom of speech, but it is unethical to report opinion as news.  The way news is reported today is shameful.   In the eyes of the netorks, Americans are too stupid to understand current events and come up with our own opinions.  We're told exactly how to feel, and we're blinded from seeing the more important issues.  It shouldn't be about which political party comes away with a win, but did we as Americans win?  In the case of healthcare, did Americans overall win from the Supreme Court Ruling?

Maybe we are too stupid to come up with our own opinions.  We like be told what we want to hear because we're afraid the truth may evoke a sense of duty to act and remove ourselves from complacency .  We like to pick villains and heroes.  We like to see our heroes as invincible, and we're willing to overlook our heroes' flaws because we like to hate the villain more than we like to love our hero.  We like to point fingers and pretend we are experts on everything.  We enjoy telling others why they're wrong, especially when we know that we're wrong.  We enjoy believing that underneath every executive decision lies a bigger cinematic plot bubbling to escape.  

Each political debate in which we engage is about who's a better debater, when it should be what is the right answer?  The media preaches only black and white, right and wrong, good and evil, and those are defined completely different by each station.  Deep down, I think Americans know that there are not two solutions to every problem, but that's what we've decided to accept.