Thursday, September 11, 2008
Republicans are disenfranchising again
According to this and this, from the Michigan Messenger, Republicans are planning to disenfranchise voters in this swing state. First by having a list of foreclosed properties and challenging voters based on that. Then, when outrage erupted when the plan became public, retracting their plan but admitting that they will probably do the same "voter caging" techniques of using direct-mailers that are returned, that they used in Ohio in 2004. There have been stories of this going on again in Ohio this year.
Monday, August 25, 2008
work hard and reap the rewards
it was the first full day of the convention. I showed up for work this morning and stayed through two shifts. At the start of the 3td shift, my supervisor pulled me aside and asked me if I wanted to go to the convention I was like hell yes I'd like to go. So he slipped off his credentials and gave them to me. I got on the last bus in to pepsi center
Public seating was on the top level, and by the time I got there all the good seating at the front was filled. But I still got pretty good seats to the side of the stage.
I got to see all the evenings speakers, including Caroline Kennedy and Ted, and Michelle Obama and her brother, who was one of the better speakers of the night. It was amazing. Hearing and watching people like Ted Kennedy speak on TV, you lose a lot of the power and energy of the speech. And you could imagine if you feel a speech someone gave was powerful when you watched it on tv, being there is like 1000% more powerful!
Tonight made my trip worth it, save for one thing. Thursday night. I still need to get a ticket in...
Oh and I did a bit of camera man work tonight for an ET blogger. So you might see a video I shot on the site! Not that it would have my name on it or anything.... :)
Public seating was on the top level, and by the time I got there all the good seating at the front was filled. But I still got pretty good seats to the side of the stage.
I got to see all the evenings speakers, including Caroline Kennedy and Ted, and Michelle Obama and her brother, who was one of the better speakers of the night. It was amazing. Hearing and watching people like Ted Kennedy speak on TV, you lose a lot of the power and energy of the speech. And you could imagine if you feel a speech someone gave was powerful when you watched it on tv, being there is like 1000% more powerful!
Tonight made my trip worth it, save for one thing. Thursday night. I still need to get a ticket in...
Oh and I did a bit of camera man work tonight for an ET blogger. So you might see a video I shot on the site! Not that it would have my name on it or anything.... :)
Friday, August 22, 2008
Gonig to Denver
So I'm feeling a little overwhelmed. I'm sitting in the airport about to embark on a crazy adventure to Denver for the Democratic National Convention. I've been a supporter of Obama since the beginning. It was over a year ago that I volunteered at the state convention here in San Diego. I was still a new resident of this beautiful city by the ocean. I was lucky then. I just on a whim went down to volunteer and ended up guarding one of the doors onto the main floor. From my post I was able to listen to Hillary, Obama, Dodd, and Kucinich. I missed Edwards, but I had enough of an idea of who he was from the last election, and knew he wasn't my guy. After listening to each candidate I knew Obama was our best shot at not just winning the White House, but of taking out country back from the right wing war mongerring of the last 8 years
I remember having such optimism for this new millenia back in 2000, even with Bush's illegitimate claiming of victory. That hope and optimism was quickly wiped out after 9/11, and the PATRIOT act, and Iraq, and Guantanamo, and Abu Gahrab, and civil war in Iraq, and Katrina, and 5000 American service members killed, and tens of thousands seriously wounded, and illegal wire-tapping, and political firings at the justice department, and the Valarie Plame scandal, and Scooter Libby, and KARL ROVE....
But I digress. I could go on ad naseum. The point is, Obama has brought that hope and optimism back, and that's the reason I'm out here in Denver. To support him for President.
I remember having such optimism for this new millenia back in 2000, even with Bush's illegitimate claiming of victory. That hope and optimism was quickly wiped out after 9/11, and the PATRIOT act, and Iraq, and Guantanamo, and Abu Gahrab, and civil war in Iraq, and Katrina, and 5000 American service members killed, and tens of thousands seriously wounded, and illegal wire-tapping, and political firings at the justice department, and the Valarie Plame scandal, and Scooter Libby, and KARL ROVE....
But I digress. I could go on ad naseum. The point is, Obama has brought that hope and optimism back, and that's the reason I'm out here in Denver. To support him for President.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Conception/Abortion
So I was watching the "Civil Forum" last night, and I've been reading some responses online about Obama vs. McCain on their views of abortion and when life begins. This is what I believe.
We know that when the sperm fertilizes an egg, that single cell will eventually grow in to a human being. That's not disputable. The question is, at what point between conception and birth do we confer human rights on those cells we call a fetus.
Let's start off with that single cell. No single cell in my current body is assigned human rights. If I slice off the tip of my finger, I'm not going to hold a memorial service and buy a plot of land to bury it in. As great a finger tip as it's been, it's not that important to assign it human rights in and of itself...it's just a clump of human cells.
On the flip side of that, if every cell in my body dies, (ie, I croak), then that group of cells that was once my mortal flesh, is a tragic loss (or so I would hope).
Back to conception... The big picture is that no single cell is important, EXCEPT if that single cell is all there is to the human at that point in their lifecycle. Once that fertilized egg splits in to more cells, (excluding the splitting that occurs when identical twins are born), no single cell is "life" as a whole. What makes that single cell so special? Well, nothing. It's just a cell. There's no consciousness inside its walls. There's no special electrical pulses going on that doesn't happen in other cells. It's just a cell that will do its job, and split to form the cells that will eventually grow in to a human body.
Going back to the fingertip. With today's advancing research in to stem cells, and regrowing human cells from them, maybe some day we'll be able to regrow my whole body just from the cells in my fingertip. When that day comes, is my fingertip given human rights because it could possibly be grown in to another living, breathing, human body? Or does that not count because it's unnatural?
But let's pretend that some rogue science lab does just this. They start growing human clones from people's fingertips. When their lab gets raided by the FBI and their experiments are confiscated, are those FBI agents killing people? Or are those "abominations" not protected?
Let's move this conversation back to this bunch of cells dying thing...if I lop off my arm, no big whoop. I'm still alive, and my arm gets disposed of somewhere. If I really wanted to, I'm sure I could have my arm buried, but I choose not to, since it's just a bunch of cells. But what happens if I'm in an accident and I suffer severe brain damage, which is later diagnosed as being brain dead. If my brain stem is still functioning, even though I have no higher cognitive brain activity, I could still be breathing, and my heart could still be beating. Am I alive?
So my parents, or significant other decide that they want to pull the plug, (which is what I would want them to do). It's perfectly legal for them to do that, as technically I'm already dead. So according to the law in this regard, I'm dead if my brain isn't alive and functioning--ie, I have no consciousness.
So when does the embryo form its brain, and when can we detect brain functioning? This is a tough question to answer. From what I've read online, the cells for all the major organs find their places in the first trimester of growth. This is also when the few cells that will become the heart start beating. But are there enough cells of the brain to qualify it as alive and conscious? Not really. You can't really prove it either way, I guess. But you can't really prove that my brain-dead brain is actually dead and won't come back to life either. It's a tough decision that has to be made by those people able and willing to make it.
This is a debate that will never have definitive proof that when X happens, life has begun. And until that proof is found and agreed upon, we have to use our power of reason to determine the best course for our society to take.
My personal belief is that abortion should be totally 100% legal and accessible to anyone while their pregnancy is in the first trimester--this includes the over-the-counter "morning after" pill. During the second trimester, there should be more restrictions on when an abortion is done, and that it should be a last option after the pregnant woman has been informed of all other options. Abortion during the third trimester shouldn't be allowed except in extreme cases where there is possibility of death to the mother or child or both if the pregnancy went forward.
This won't appease the right-to-lifers who believe conception = life. But for the majority of American's, I think this is a middle road that we can all walk on.
We know that when the sperm fertilizes an egg, that single cell will eventually grow in to a human being. That's not disputable. The question is, at what point between conception and birth do we confer human rights on those cells we call a fetus.
Let's start off with that single cell. No single cell in my current body is assigned human rights. If I slice off the tip of my finger, I'm not going to hold a memorial service and buy a plot of land to bury it in. As great a finger tip as it's been, it's not that important to assign it human rights in and of itself...it's just a clump of human cells.
On the flip side of that, if every cell in my body dies, (ie, I croak), then that group of cells that was once my mortal flesh, is a tragic loss (or so I would hope).
Back to conception... The big picture is that no single cell is important, EXCEPT if that single cell is all there is to the human at that point in their lifecycle. Once that fertilized egg splits in to more cells, (excluding the splitting that occurs when identical twins are born), no single cell is "life" as a whole. What makes that single cell so special? Well, nothing. It's just a cell. There's no consciousness inside its walls. There's no special electrical pulses going on that doesn't happen in other cells. It's just a cell that will do its job, and split to form the cells that will eventually grow in to a human body.
Going back to the fingertip. With today's advancing research in to stem cells, and regrowing human cells from them, maybe some day we'll be able to regrow my whole body just from the cells in my fingertip. When that day comes, is my fingertip given human rights because it could possibly be grown in to another living, breathing, human body? Or does that not count because it's unnatural?
But let's pretend that some rogue science lab does just this. They start growing human clones from people's fingertips. When their lab gets raided by the FBI and their experiments are confiscated, are those FBI agents killing people? Or are those "abominations" not protected?
Let's move this conversation back to this bunch of cells dying thing...if I lop off my arm, no big whoop. I'm still alive, and my arm gets disposed of somewhere. If I really wanted to, I'm sure I could have my arm buried, but I choose not to, since it's just a bunch of cells. But what happens if I'm in an accident and I suffer severe brain damage, which is later diagnosed as being brain dead. If my brain stem is still functioning, even though I have no higher cognitive brain activity, I could still be breathing, and my heart could still be beating. Am I alive?
So my parents, or significant other decide that they want to pull the plug, (which is what I would want them to do). It's perfectly legal for them to do that, as technically I'm already dead. So according to the law in this regard, I'm dead if my brain isn't alive and functioning--ie, I have no consciousness.
So when does the embryo form its brain, and when can we detect brain functioning? This is a tough question to answer. From what I've read online, the cells for all the major organs find their places in the first trimester of growth. This is also when the few cells that will become the heart start beating. But are there enough cells of the brain to qualify it as alive and conscious? Not really. You can't really prove it either way, I guess. But you can't really prove that my brain-dead brain is actually dead and won't come back to life either. It's a tough decision that has to be made by those people able and willing to make it.
This is a debate that will never have definitive proof that when X happens, life has begun. And until that proof is found and agreed upon, we have to use our power of reason to determine the best course for our society to take.
My personal belief is that abortion should be totally 100% legal and accessible to anyone while their pregnancy is in the first trimester--this includes the over-the-counter "morning after" pill. During the second trimester, there should be more restrictions on when an abortion is done, and that it should be a last option after the pregnant woman has been informed of all other options. Abortion during the third trimester shouldn't be allowed except in extreme cases where there is possibility of death to the mother or child or both if the pregnancy went forward.
This won't appease the right-to-lifers who believe conception = life. But for the majority of American's, I think this is a middle road that we can all walk on.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Obama Vs. McCain: The Internet
OBAMA:
[http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=38629&ref=rellink]
Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama laid out his plans to use technology to increase government transparency, promising online access to federal data and the opportunity for citizens to comment online on pending legislation.
Building upon previous promises to free government from undue political and financial influence, Obama's technology and innovation plan would aim to increase transparency through e-government initiatives.
"We will put government data online in universally accessible formats, [allowing citizens to] track federal grants, contracts, earmarks and lobbying contracts, participate in government forums, ask questions in real time, offer suggestions that will be reviewed before decisions are made, and comment on legislation before it is signed," Obama said during a speech at the Google headquarters in Mountain View, Calif. on Nov. 14.
The plan would expand on the 2006 Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act -- co-sponsored by Obama -- which mandates the creation of a user-friendly Web site to track federal spending data. Rule-making agencies would be required to deliberate issues via live feeds on the Internet that would allow citizens to respond to their efforts. Nonemergency legislation would be posted on the White House Web site, where people would be able to review and comment on it for five days before it was signed into law.
Cabinet officials would be required to hold periodic nationwide online town hall meetings to answer questions and discuss issues before their agencies, and such technologies as blogs, wikis and social networking tools would be used to enhance internal, cross-agency, and public communication and information sharing.
"Technology empowers people to come together to [drive] change," Obama said. "We have to do more than get our house in order; the opportunity in front of us is bigger than that. Seizing this opportunity is going to depend on more than what the government does and even more than what the technology sector does."
Obama's plan also includes the appointment of the first federal chief technology officer. The CTO would oversee e-government initiatives and be charged with ensuring that all agencies have a modern, secure infrastructure, use best-in-class technologies and share best practices. The CTO also would be responsible for implementing standards to ensure technological interoperability of key government functions.
[http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060608-network_neutral/]
Obama supports Net Neutrality:
"It is because the Internet is a neutral platform that I can put out this podcast and transmit it over the Internet without having to go through any corporate media middleman. I can say what I want without censorship or without having to pay a special charge.
But the big telephone and cable companies want to change the Internet as we know it. They say that they want to create high speed lanes on the Internet and strike exclusive contractual agreements with Internet content providers for access to those high speed lanes.
Everyone who cannot pony up the cash will be relegated to the slow lanes."
MCCAIN:
[http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/12/mccain-online/]
In an interview with New York Times, John McCain confirmed that he doesn’t email, doesn’t read blogs, doesn’t go online, but does occasionally read Drudge. While he’s not a consumer of online information, McCain said he does “understand the impact of blogs on American politics today and political campaigns”:
Q: What websites if any do you look at regularly?
Mr. McCain: Brooke and Mark show me Drudge, obviously, everybody watches, for better or for worse, Drudge. Sometimes I look at Politico. Sometimes RealPolitics, sometimes.
(Mrs. McCain and Ms. Buchanan both interject: “Meagan’s blog!”)
Mr. McCain: Excuse me, Meagan’s blog. And we also look at the blogs from Michael and from you that may not be in the newspaper, that are just part of your blog.
Q: But do you go on line for yourself?
Mr. McCain: They go on for me. I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself. I don’t expect to be a great communicator, I don’t expect to set up my own blog, but I am becoming computer literate to the point where I can get the information that I need – including going to my daughter’s blog first, before anything else.
Q: Do you use a blackberry or email?
Mr. McCain: No
Mark Salter: He uses a BlackBerry, just ours.
Mr. McCain: I use the Blackberry, but I don’t e-mail, I’ve never felt the particular need to e-mail. I read e-mails all the time, but the communications that I have with my friends and staff are oral and done with my cell phone. I have the luxury of being in contact with them literally all the time. We now have a phone on the plane that is usable on the plane, so I just never really felt a need to do it. But I do – could I just say, really – I understand the impact of blogs on American politics today and political campaigns. I understand that. And I understand that something appears on one blog, can ricochet all around and get into the evening news, the front page of The New York Times. So, I do pay attention to the blogs. And I am not in any way unappreciative of the impact that they have on entire campaigns and world opinion.
[http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/6/3/224720.shtml]
McCain opposes Net Neutrality
"When you control the pipe you should be able to get profit from your investment,”
---------------
The choice is between someone who seems to understand the new paradigm of the internet, the issues we face, and how we should be using technology in our government, OR someone who doesn’t use the internet, relies on others to know what it’s about, and falls back on conventional, standard responses when confronted with new issues involving the internet and business.
As someone involved in an internet technology based company, isn’t it better to have someone in the Oval Office who understands the issues that will likely affect our business? I think so.
[http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=38629&ref=rellink]
Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama laid out his plans to use technology to increase government transparency, promising online access to federal data and the opportunity for citizens to comment online on pending legislation.
Building upon previous promises to free government from undue political and financial influence, Obama's technology and innovation plan would aim to increase transparency through e-government initiatives.
"We will put government data online in universally accessible formats, [allowing citizens to] track federal grants, contracts, earmarks and lobbying contracts, participate in government forums, ask questions in real time, offer suggestions that will be reviewed before decisions are made, and comment on legislation before it is signed," Obama said during a speech at the Google headquarters in Mountain View, Calif. on Nov. 14.
The plan would expand on the 2006 Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act -- co-sponsored by Obama -- which mandates the creation of a user-friendly Web site to track federal spending data. Rule-making agencies would be required to deliberate issues via live feeds on the Internet that would allow citizens to respond to their efforts. Nonemergency legislation would be posted on the White House Web site, where people would be able to review and comment on it for five days before it was signed into law.
Cabinet officials would be required to hold periodic nationwide online town hall meetings to answer questions and discuss issues before their agencies, and such technologies as blogs, wikis and social networking tools would be used to enhance internal, cross-agency, and public communication and information sharing.
"Technology empowers people to come together to [drive] change," Obama said. "We have to do more than get our house in order; the opportunity in front of us is bigger than that. Seizing this opportunity is going to depend on more than what the government does and even more than what the technology sector does."
Obama's plan also includes the appointment of the first federal chief technology officer. The CTO would oversee e-government initiatives and be charged with ensuring that all agencies have a modern, secure infrastructure, use best-in-class technologies and share best practices. The CTO also would be responsible for implementing standards to ensure technological interoperability of key government functions.
[http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060608-network_neutral/]
Obama supports Net Neutrality:
"It is because the Internet is a neutral platform that I can put out this podcast and transmit it over the Internet without having to go through any corporate media middleman. I can say what I want without censorship or without having to pay a special charge.
But the big telephone and cable companies want to change the Internet as we know it. They say that they want to create high speed lanes on the Internet and strike exclusive contractual agreements with Internet content providers for access to those high speed lanes.
Everyone who cannot pony up the cash will be relegated to the slow lanes."
MCCAIN:
[http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/12/mccain-online/]
In an interview with New York Times, John McCain confirmed that he doesn’t email, doesn’t read blogs, doesn’t go online, but does occasionally read Drudge. While he’s not a consumer of online information, McCain said he does “understand the impact of blogs on American politics today and political campaigns”:
Q: What websites if any do you look at regularly?
Mr. McCain: Brooke and Mark show me Drudge, obviously, everybody watches, for better or for worse, Drudge. Sometimes I look at Politico. Sometimes RealPolitics, sometimes.
(Mrs. McCain and Ms. Buchanan both interject: “Meagan’s blog!”)
Mr. McCain: Excuse me, Meagan’s blog. And we also look at the blogs from Michael and from you that may not be in the newspaper, that are just part of your blog.
Q: But do you go on line for yourself?
Mr. McCain: They go on for me. I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself. I don’t expect to be a great communicator, I don’t expect to set up my own blog, but I am becoming computer literate to the point where I can get the information that I need – including going to my daughter’s blog first, before anything else.
Q: Do you use a blackberry or email?
Mr. McCain: No
Mark Salter: He uses a BlackBerry, just ours.
Mr. McCain: I use the Blackberry, but I don’t e-mail, I’ve never felt the particular need to e-mail. I read e-mails all the time, but the communications that I have with my friends and staff are oral and done with my cell phone. I have the luxury of being in contact with them literally all the time. We now have a phone on the plane that is usable on the plane, so I just never really felt a need to do it. But I do – could I just say, really – I understand the impact of blogs on American politics today and political campaigns. I understand that. And I understand that something appears on one blog, can ricochet all around and get into the evening news, the front page of The New York Times. So, I do pay attention to the blogs. And I am not in any way unappreciative of the impact that they have on entire campaigns and world opinion.
[http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/6/3/224720.shtml]
McCain opposes Net Neutrality
"When you control the pipe you should be able to get profit from your investment,”
---------------
The choice is between someone who seems to understand the new paradigm of the internet, the issues we face, and how we should be using technology in our government, OR someone who doesn’t use the internet, relies on others to know what it’s about, and falls back on conventional, standard responses when confronted with new issues involving the internet and business.
As someone involved in an internet technology based company, isn’t it better to have someone in the Oval Office who understands the issues that will likely affect our business? I think so.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Ron Paul on Barack Obama
Just read down my blog and you'll see that at one point I was torn between Ron Paul and Barack Obama. I chose Obama (being the Democrat I am), and I haven't looked back. But I still believe Ron Paul is a great American, who would make a great President. He is intelligent, and understands this world, probably better than Obama does. But I personally just felt Obama would make a better President, regardless.
Anyway, Paul made some comments on Obama the other day, and I thought they were great. Give them a listen:
Anyway, Paul made some comments on Obama the other day, and I thought they were great. Give them a listen:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
