Beating a dead horse

Its a sad time indeed for the N&O. Weeks ago, they uncovered evidence that Former Gov. Mike Easley flew on his friend's plane for free. But apparently former governors are not allowed to have friends with planes, or so they say. We've finally moved on, but not to anything better. It's starting to seem like the N&O has a grudge against not only the Easleys but NC State as well. A year ago, Mrs. Easley got a pay raise along with a pretty big promotion. But the N&O conveniently left that last detail out. Now she is getting heat because a friend of hers, a certain former Chairman of the NC State Board of Trustees, recommended her for a job. That was four years ago. But apparently the N&O holds grudges for a long time. Their incessant campaign against the former first lady and her husband has lead to a FBI investigation, an ethics investigation, and so far has claimed the jobs of at least two people who just got caught in the cross hairs. But apparently its not enough for the N&O that Larry Nielsen, resigned from his position as provost at NC State because he was getting pestered by reporters (how many do you think were from the N&O?) so badly he couldn't do his job. Now they want his pay too. Where do you draw the line? When does investigative reporting go to far? I think its when someone has to give up their job, not because they did anything wrong, but because it has become impossible for them to do their job with all the people scrutinizing every detail of every decision they made. Nobody is infallible and if anyone should know that, its the N&O. Its time for this to stop. I believe Larry Nielsen has earned the right to take a few months leave before they cut his salary. If you left your job, your vacation time would get paid out (it is a federal and state law after all.) Its time to move on. It's not like there isn't anything else to report, with President Obama nationalizing banks and socializing our formerly capitalist country (65% stake in GM seems a bit much). Maybe if the reporters stopped digging through piles of papers to find the stuff that's hidden, they should open their eyes and report on the stuff that's right in front of them. Everybody is tired of this witch hunt, and its time for the N&O to grow up. Nielsen's only mistake was qualifying their questions with a response.

Edited version submitted to N&O June 7, 2009

A Letter to the Editor: Smoking Bans

In response to the article of 1/29 "Lawmaker pursues smoking ban":

It started with banning smoking within 25 feet of state buildings. Now the NC Legislature is trying to ban smoking in "workplaces, bars, restaurants, and other public places. This is a sever turn around for the "most tobacco friendly state." It goes against every personal and business right to ban smoking across the board in all these places. If Rep. Rick Glazier thinks the bill should be passed because it saves businesses money, let the businesses decide if they want to save the money by ending smoking. The state does not work to force their own beliefs of benefits on businesses. If I owned my own bar, I would not want the state telling me how to run it. Would you? In America, we believe in the freedom to run your own life. The government has no right to take that away from us. You don't need to be for or against tobacco to see that this bill steps all over the rights of the people.

Submitted, N&O 1/29/2009

A Letter to the Editor: Obama's Former Pastor

If I take a step back and look at those people I respect and admire, I see many who do not believe as I do on many topics. So why should Obama be hammered for having a friendship with a pastor with somewhat “controversial” ideas? (“Obama’s Ties to Minister May Be ‘A Big Problem’ Some Say”, USA Today, News, Monday)

Not every person we keep company with will express the same ideals as ourselves. In some cases, those ideals may be quite the opposite. Why should we dig into Obama for his company when chances are we all have at least one person who we hold in high regard that disagrees with our ideals?

This “controversy” is nothing more than a rouse by Hilary Clinton and the Republican Party to try and stop Obama’s campaign. They are obviously getting desperate, and the fact that stories such as these are being taken seriously is very disturbing. Instead of focusing on who’s (former) pastor holds “controversial” ideals, let’s focus on the issues and what each candidate wants to do with his/her presidency.

Submitted, USA Today: Monday, March 17, 2008
Edited and Published: Friday, March 21, 2008
Read it Here

Cary - A town of whiners

Looking at the News and Observer from day to day, one thing keeps popping out at me.

Cary.

The past few newspapers I have gotten have all had an article about someone in Cary whining about something. From school reassignment last week, to the Bodies exibit this week, Cary just doesn't know how to accept reality.

Cary folks, listen:

There are poor people in the world. These poor people require an education so they can rise above their class. This is classism at its worst. Cary, a predominatly middle to upper class community, apparently has a problem with Wake County busing in low-income students to their schools. Guess what Cary. Creating your own school system is not the solution. Get over it. Your rich white asses are going to have to learn to live with poor black people in your schools. Its a fact of life. Its called diversity. There is nothing wrong with adding a little color to your life.

Secondly, there are people in the world that would rather put the greater good ahead of their own personal ideals. That being said, don't go bitching about people who donate their bodies to science. It is not your place to tell the scientific community that they can't accept donated bodies to use for science. The Bodies exhibit is just that. It is unclaimed bodies and people who have donated their bodies for scientific research. The scientific value inhearant in the Bodies exhibit may not be immediately apparent but it is there. The Bodies exhibit is there to teach. It is there to show normal people who may not have any knowledge in a medical field the body. It is there because people have decided to put their bodies up for the entire world to benifit. I would do the same. I WILL do the same. And just because some of these people don't have a name, does not mean that they shouldn't be given for research. If they are unclaimed, chances are they were not anyone important. For all you know, their inclusion in the exhibit is their one claim to fame. Don't take that from them.

Cary: Pop a couple of pills, pull the dildo out of your ass, and accept the fact that things happen and no one cares but you. GET THE FUCK OVER IT.

Policing the Internet

Ok so after what I just wrote about Net Neutrality, your going to be like "what the fuck, Daniel what are you thinking"

Let me explain.

As far as censorship goes, the internet does not need regulation. However, there are these pesky things called viruses, trojans, and crackers that I did not address in my previous post.

To that end, there needs to be an international, non-political group put together that is comprised of individuals of ALL countries, preferably internet security personnel. This group should have the power to bring down all crackers who make terrorist threats to the internet. This group should have authority in ALL countries to make arrests and hold an international trial for crimes against the internet.

This group can NOT be able to regulate the information or content on the internet, however they must be able to bring down those criminal organizations that seek to bring down the internet, or individuals on the internet.

I nominate Tom Liston ;)
http://isc.sans.org

Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality.

Many people have no idea what it means, however it is something that you need to know about.

The internet is a communication medium that does not recognize international boundaries. It is a community within itself. Since the internet is not bound by any country, no country can nor should be able to regulate its content. That is the reasoning behind Net Neutrality.

In that same respect, the internet is maintained by thousands of companies. You have companies that build and maintain all the connections to make the internet work. You have the companies that build the hardware for the internet to work. If one of these big companies, say Cisco, decides that they are no longer going to allow any traffic across their routers and switches that contain the word "shit" that will effectively censor over 90% of the traffic across the world.

The great thing about the internet is the ability to say what you want, when you want, without having to worry about being censored. However, many governments, most notably China, Russia, and the United States, have the belief that they can and must control this communications medium. Just because the information that i'm typing out right now is being sent across the world, and may end up on a Russian switch somewhere doesn't mean they have the right to censor what i'm typing. In that same respect, just because what i'm typing right now will go across a Cisco router or switch at some point before you see it, doesn't mean that Cisco has the right to censor what i'm saying.

The internet can not be controlled or censored by any one company or government. The internet was designed to be anonymous. It was designed to be free of censorship. It was designed to be the ultimate communications medium.

The ONLY regulation the internet requires is self regulation. If you get offended when someone says something thats anti-Bush, don't listen to artists music that dislike Bush. If you don't like hearing (or seeing) the word 'shit' then you really don't have any business on the internet at all.

The internet is a great thing. Don't let companies or governments change that.

More to come.

Things to think about....

So its 2:30 in the morning, and I'm sitting here listening to Tool, bored out of my mind when one of Maynard's Lyrics catches my attention:

"Listen to the tales as we all rationalize
Our way into the arms of the savior"

And of course, my mind starts thinking.... and thinking... and thinking....

So here are some things to think about next time your up at 2am and bored out of your mind.

How can one religion claim to be the only true religion? There are hundreds of thousands of religions that have been around, from Greek Mythology to Scientology, how can one of them say they are correct when there are so many other religions that could just as easily be the real one?

Here is a break down of the three major religions.

Jews worship God.
Christians worship the son of God.
Muslims worship a prophet of God.

So then the Jews are the only people who's entire belief system doesn't break the first commandment "I am the lord your God [...] You shall have no other gods before me" Exodus 20:2-3

But the Christians rationalize their beliefs by claiming the Holy Trinity, which seems to be pretty hypocritical in itself. Jesus is God, although Jesus continuously talks to God during his brief stay on earth, and God talks to Jesus.

I have no idea how the Muslims rationalize theirs (if anyone can explain their belief system to me, I would appreciate it)

Inevitably my mind will wonder into thinking about the possibility of there being a God. That is one hell of a thought process there. How can something exist omnipotently? Well that was easy enough, as an energy life form. Can there be such a thing? Who knows, maybe, maybe not. If there was such a thing, could it really manipulate everything that happens? Could it really have created our world? Doubtful. It may have planted the seed for life, but the earth was already here. Should this energy being be worshiped? Well, why not, if you need something to believe in that bad, go right ahead and worship it.

And don't get me wrong, I don't want to turn anyone away from their beliefs. I just want to make you use your brain while on summer break.

Maybe this will help you to understand my thought processes and why I dislike religions. They are way too hypocritical for me. I think it is fully possible, although highly unlikely, that there is a God, and therefor chose not to believe in him.

Maybe you can share your beliefs, and why everything I'm saying is absolutely wrong. I've hardly ever seen a well constructed rebuttal to something of this nature (I wonder if its possible?) Maybe one of you can indulge me.

Sanctiity of Marriage

Those three words are a huge part of the upcoming election. And almost all the presidential candidates are all for defining Marriage as a union between a man and a woman. But why? Who does it hurt to allow gays and lesbians to get married? Why shouldn't they? Is it just the homophobe inside them all or is there something I don't get?

If marriage needs a legal definition, define it as a union between two people. It hurts more people not to define it as a union between two people than it does to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.