Jacob Santos

If you read Media Matters, then the only conclusion one can come to is that Conservatives and Republicans are evil to the heart and soul. Whom are bent on world destruction, travesties, and generally would kick kittens because their so damn cute (albeit not always good, but I guess cute is good in a way). As a disclaimer, I haven’t really read that much on the web site, but it appears that they don’t often talk about liberals or democrats all that often, if at all.

To be fair, it isn’t as if Conservatives are any more “righteous” in their descriptions of the so called evil Left. It seems that to the Right, the Left is evil and wants to ruin the country and the Left likewise thinks the same of the Right. I will just say that they can’t both be right, but at least the bickering is entertaining. Quite frankly, I think both sides are doing a disservice to their side by polarizing each issue. Any layman should be cautious to take any side lest be associated with that side evermore.

I haven’t actually read any conservative blog, but I would assume the same tactics used on Media Matters applies as well. The tactics and proofs are far too effective at shutting down any opposing side to not be used. Using logic, reason, facts, and proof in a unbiased fashion isn’t as sexy as ad hominem attacks and using sources that are also biased towards the same opinion.

You see, attacking someone’s character is effective, because it puts the burden of proof, in most peoples’ eyes, on the character being attacked. In this the straw man side steps the issue by forcing the character being attacked to disprove the accusation and then try to disprove the other points made in the articles. The best claim is to say that since someone or some group took money from the oil companies, then they can’t make any argument against climate change or global warming.

While it may or may not be true that receiving money from a particular group that may lean a certain way in the research findings, it true of any group that receives money. If the pretense is that a group that receives money from a group believing a certain way is corrupted in their findings, then many of the research groups that receive any funding from outside sources are contentious. There was a very well written study about this very topic on Watts Up With That website, but I don’t believe Media Matters would ever consider that site as a valid source, given that they actually use facts, statistics, unbiased reporting (for the most part and I would say far more than whats on Media Matters), studies, evidence, and research to further their claim. Alas Watts Up With That website’s lack of frequently attacking someone’s character because they don’t hold the same belief wouldn’t make them a news source that Media Matters could use.

My perspective of the site, is that it wants to either preach to the choir or get the Independents who haven’t fully researched both sides of the issue or who are leading towards the mindset of Media Matters anyway to follow Media Matters. Researching both sides of the issue is slightly difficult and I do respect that Media Matters at least gives you the reference material to decide after reading the opinion piece. Often when they do give the full transcription or article they are referencing, the question is often, “Why is this a big deal again?” and sometimes they take jokes, sarcasm, and tongue-in-cheek out of context to further their claim.

Holy shit would they have a field day with me if I ever got into political writing. Of course, I don’t believe they would bother, because they go after the big names who people actually might listen to and read. Furthermore, I don’t really care about politics to write about it often. I just think that when you read something from Media Matters and its sources, you should be wary and do more research to get the full story.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Climate Change – How it is a Win / Win
• Please Spay and Neuter Abusive Parents
• Net Neutrality: Are People Wrong?
• Will Democrats Save Us from Corruption?
• Social Security

The thought for those who believe in Global Warming, climate change, is that even if it is a fallacy of logic and science, it is still worth fighting for. I mean, I sort of understand why those crazy ass people would fight so hard for animals, because if someone touched my cat, I would kill them too (I kid, but seriously, they wouldn’t do it a second time).

The point is that, they can’t be wrong, because if they enact their policies, well nothing is going to happen that wasn’t going to happen anyway, so they win. Even if their policies aren’t enacted and disaster doesn’t happen, they’ll be able to say that it could have been worse.

The issue for me is that the New York Times article came out and had this gem in it, “…Weber told me…’More or less, people have agreed on that….’”. I was thinking, “More or less” doesn’t mean shit! I could more or less kill someone and still not kill them. I could more or less have sex with a woman with my mind. I could more or less be a fantasy hero who gets head after saving the princess.

None of which would ever happen. If only it was possible to have sex with a woman with your mind! Damn, I would have been laid so many times! That is besides the point. The point is that “More or less” is just filler to sound neutral, but still say what people think they want to hear. The statement should have been written, “Let’s start with the fact that climate change is anthropogenic, people have agreed on that.” Which is an untrue statement, because I don’t agree with it. I’m part of the lesser people the person is talking about.

The rest of the article is actually pretty insightful, unfortunately, I don’t really care about signing up and giving New York Times access to my soul. I couldn’t read the rest of the article. I think the gist of it, is that the arguments that the climate warming people are putting forth aren’t getting across on the people they are trying to persuade.

The point is, that I’ve always thought about the environment. I love the environment, yet, for some reason, because I don’t believe in some theory, I some how don’t love the environment. Shit, that really peeves me. Why don’t you plant a tree and stop worrying about my trash habits. If I want to throw out my porn magazines, as opposed to recycling them (I would make a comment, but it would be taken incorrectly), then it is my choice.

The problem, I believe is that the point of recycling is the environment and I think people are all for green, instead of the gray. People like parks, and generally beautiful places and people. It is how people get laid, if you are beautiful, then people want to sleep with you. If there is a beautiful place, then people want to sleep with the special person at that location. Okay, I pulled that out of my ass, but it makes sense. Hell, I would love to make love in the park (although, I wouldn’t be all that picky on where the act was made as long as the act was being made).

Anyway, the point of global warming is to freak people the hell out to get them into action. I think Al Gore fully believes that the Bullshit he puts out is justified by the actions millions of people are going to take because of it. If he was actually honest and shown that parts of the USA wouldn’t be flooded by 2100, then people wouldn’t give a shit. Which the study being conducted in the article shows. When you give facts, well, people could care less, because it doesn’t affect them or people around them.

However, if you are in the so called “area” that will be flooded and it is quite a large area, so most people will be, then you are going to be alarmed. The point is that the article that is referenced, does not have the oceans raising 11 feet, but only a fraction of that (predicted, so only a theory, but based on “observations”¹).

The change to “climate change” instead of “global warming” is that there is also global cooling else where. The problem being and the so called deniers will say, “What global warming,” when there is a sudden cooling, is that it doesn’t disprove the “global warming” trend. If the overall trend is warming over the years, a few fluctuations towards cooling doesn’t offset the overall warming. It is just that the so called deniers like to point it out to reference the fallacy of the “global warming” argument.

The term Climate Change can include the sudden shifts towards cooling and everything else that is wrong in the Earth’s climate. I mean, the argument is beautiful in its simplicity. It allows references that people are generally idiots and won’t realized how much they are being fooled. The argument makes a great deal more sense than “Global Warming” when there is unseasonable cooling. It is genius and extremely difficult for the so called deniers to disprove.

You just have to look around at the climate and you’ll notice a shift of the climate. If you frighten enough people, then certainly people will enact whatever you want to “stop” the climate from changing. The issue is that people tend to believe they can affect the climate. The Earth is actually a lot bigger than people tend to think. In the grand scope of things, it is hard to believe that a “pollutant” that is less than 1% of the atmosphere can really cause as much change to the climate. I mean, it would have to be close to 10% to really start harming human life (although, other animal life probably be screwed royally). We wouldn’t die until it reached 20%.

I mean, most of the atmosphere is Nitrogen and Oxygen, so carbon dioxide would have to displace them and they can’t just disappear, it has to go somewhere. The graphs are deceiving, because while they might be correct, the scale of them tell a different story. If it was to scale with everything else, then the changes would appear a great deal smaller than what is actually shown. I think is is what is frustrating for me, is that those pushing the whole climate change theory are playing on the general public’s lack of knowledge or concern towards details.

You can deceive with fact, just by playing on a person’s ignorance of facts. I believe that is generally what those in the climate change crowd attempt to do. I also believe they feel it is justified, which is okay.

¹ Well, the so called deniers will say that the observations are flawed, but meh, even if you take the report at its word, then there wouldn’t be as much flooding as Al Gore wishes people to believe.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Media Matters: A Watch Group For Conservatives
• Please Spay and Neuter Abusive Parents
• Net Neutrality: Are People Wrong?
• Will Democrats Save Us from Corruption?
• Social Security

The most important and honorable job a person can have is being a parent. It is very difficult, stressful, and bears a lot of responsibility. That is not to say that parents should do whatever they wish to their children. Everything effects the child mental and physical health and directly related to the parent’s action or inaction.

Children subconsciously learn and adapt better to their parents than anyone else. The difficulty lies in the choices children make based on the information handed them and honestly, the only ones that should have the patience would be the birth parents or adoptive parents that are saints.

Most parents expect everyone to stay out of their handling of their children. I agree up to a certain point, where the threshold for abusive behavior is breached. That line which is crossed is subjective and relative to the society’s culture and overall relationship between parent and child. I’m not concern with the “maybe it negatively will effect the child or not,” because my concern is with the actions that will absolutely have an negative impact.

Topics like whether or not a child should be spanked have no relevance. Some children must be spanked to unlearn certain behavior, while others it would be acceptable to “teach” the child by talking or other non-physical discipline. Children are not textbook examples, where you can look up the action to take. You can say that just as children will automatically learn from their parents, parents must manually learn the correct action to take to teach their children the “right” behavior.

Parental behavior such as cooking meth, beating of children for no specific reason, and other abusive or destructive behavior that most sane people would frown upon is what I’m referring to. Actions that society as a whole would point and shout, “You must not do that!” My complaint is that with the current United States system, nothing is done to keep the out casted parents from breeding. If you have to take children away in the first place, then the natural next step should be to get to the root of the problem and keep the person from having any more kids.

It is a more humane method and sensible than my other suggestions:

• Be shot in the lung. Why the lung? It is a most long and painful death as the blood fills up the lung and the person suffocates.
• If someone who rapes a child, should have a hot iron shoved up their ass and raped with it.
• Take a chainsaw and cut off their arm, then beat the person to an inch of their life with their limbs.

Meth Parents

Why are these people even allows to have kids? If you are picked up for drugs in your system, they should just spay or neuter the person to make for certain that they never have kids.

The question of whether they eventually turn their ways and turn to god or good, should they still be given the chance to have kids? That is a good question and I still think they shouldn’t be able to have kids. The idea that once a meth user, always a meth user stands. You have no crystal ball to see if they will turn back to meth using, so it would be easier to just be sure that they can’t ever have kids.

In my area, meth usage is a major, along with drinking. With as many bars as Springfield, Missouri has, you would think people would have 0.10 blood alcohol content at all times.

You hear a lot about parents with three or more kids who either died from toxic air or exposion from the toxics, or were taken away when the parents were jailed for five or more years. You have to wonder how they will be affected from their parents usage and manufacturing of the drug.

If they had been ‘fixed’ when they were first picked up, then at least a few parents would never had been. I would be much happier knowing that those kids would never grow up to be users themselves and screw their children up, than knowing that some of those children will grow up to be users themselves and have children.

It is sad, if you think about it with any comprehension of the thought of the children’s future. I would rather those potential kids never exist as horrible as it sounds.

“Redneck” Loving

I think dropping a child every 10 to 11 months is an unwise decision. Not that there is anything wrong with having sex all of the time and totalling 10+ kids in the birthing age, as long as you can feed the mouths.

I heard about a family who had five kids almost exactly one year apart taken away, because a lack of parental guidance, supervision, and care. I’m all for sex and having it, even if I’m still a virgin, I can’t expect others take similiar preventive action as me. I think that if you are going to have sex, you should use a condom or birth control just to keep the unwanted children population down.

If you aren’t going to care for your kids, the best option would be to either not have them or give them to someone who will halfway care for them. It is better to be with someone who halfway cares than a parent who doesn’t care at all.

As an aside, even after the kids were taken away the bitch was still popping kids out. Now if only I can find a whore like that to mate with, I’ll be living large.

Raping Kids

The question isn’t whether they should get 20 years in prison. The question is whether or not they should still live. I say no. If you start killing those who take the innocence of children, you would probably not stop people from raping kids, but it should be fun torturing them and broadcasting it to the public.

The prison population, is said to take care of those who molest or rape kids, however I say you take it further by publicity torturing them. It would keep the common would be rapist out of the game, “Hmm, be filmed while I’m beat within the inch of my life, or not rape any kids.” I’ll go with latter.

Actually, I base a lot of my decisions on the possiblity of prison anal raping, “If I do that, would I be ass raped if I am caught.” If the answer is yes, then you better bet your ass that I’m not going to do it. It keeps common folk from doing stuff they would do otherwise. For example, finding and killing bitches who rape kids, and oh, after you raped the child molester or child abuser. The irony would probably escape them, so it best to take a metal bat to their head.

I think the excuse that they can’t find a date because they live with their mom and hasn’t be laid ever is pretty damn lame. Hell, I could go out and find a lady to have sex with. It would take a few drinks, but it is possible. I hold firm that if some ugly pig face guy can date a ultra fine woman, then I can score an average lady easily.

A Parent’s Life Is For Their Kids

I sincerely believe that once you have a child, for the next 17 to 18 years, your life is now towards the child’s future. It is difficult, but the child for the first 7 to 13 years is entirely dependent on you for survival. They eventually move away from the dependency afterwards, which would bring thoughts of taking the kids out (read murder). Those who don’t should be rewarded, but there isn’t enough money in the world to do that. Their reward is in the hearts and minds of the children the bring into the world, continuing the family line.

I just hope that I can give to my future child or children the respect, care, and protection they require.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Media Matters: A Watch Group For Conservatives
• Climate Change – How it is a Win / Win
• Net Neutrality: Are People Wrong?
• Will Democrats Save Us from Corruption?
• Social Security

From what I have read at a few sites, it would seem that the providers want to partition off parts of the Internet from others. I agree that such an action would server to anger many people, however, I have also read that the debate is over Quality of Service or QOS.

If the Net Neutrality is over QOS, then I think people are wrong to worry over such an action. QOS is an expensive venture for a company, even within the company own lines. I wouldn’t mind paying extra for QOS in a tiered level, even more so for streamed video and audio.

QOS would allow for such services as online television and I would like more than anything to have that.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Media Matters: A Watch Group For Conservatives
• Climate Change – How it is a Win / Win
• Please Spay and Neuter Abusive Parents
• Will Democrats Save Us from Corruption?
• Social Security

Republican corrupt has been coming out for the past few years and citizens are growing increasely discontent in the actions of government. I’m not going to discuss those of which who are in the US illegally, because they can’t legally vote, so they don’t matter in the great scheme of things. Well, the same could be said about the majority of citizens who choose not to vote for other reasons.

We have to stick it to the Republicans for the horrible job they are doing, they have been asking for it and we as citizens have always given into causing pain for others. The question is, will Democrats really save us? I mean, they have been pointing our the President’s mistakes since a year after 9-11. Every single mistake or misaction or lack of action has been twisted into the Democrats favor. The ends always justifies the means, so good for them for taking up backstabbing the other party. Backstabbing isn’t an evil, horrible thing to do, it is the way of life and nature rules us all. Of course, it would only be backstabbing if the Democrats actually cared about the welfare or opinion of Republicans.

The truth perhaps is that some have relatively short term memory, which is why people are going to vote majority of Democrats in during the mid-term election. If you can’t vote for Republican, then you have to vote Democrat or you just don’t vote and let the hand of fate decide how badly the government is going to ignore and treat you. The United States political system doesn’t allow for more than two major parties. If you vote third party, then there is little chance that anyone else is going to, so you would be wasting your vote.

The cycle will continue, it will come to light that the Democrats to replace the corrupt Republicans will be found corrupt themselves. After that, people are going to vote Republican and again the same will be discovered.

A factor in all of this are all of the interest groups who want the government to bow to their will and implement their laws. A government can not please everyone all of the time without falling to Anarchy or Fascism. This rises to problems, when a large minority wants laws to be implemented against the majority. For example, homosexuals wanting marriage ‘rights’ or illegals wanting to stay in a country and not be deported.

People have individual opinions and needs from the government. Most people would be content to have the government leave them alone, but with the gas prices, this isn’t going to be an easy fix for the government to work out with a wave of their wand.

I’ll be content as long as the government doesn’t mess with the Internet and raise my taxes. I’m poor and paying the government more than I need is taking from the amount of food I can stuff into my mouth.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Media Matters: A Watch Group For Conservatives
• Climate Change – How it is a Win / Win
• Please Spay and Neuter Abusive Parents
• Net Neutrality: Are People Wrong?
• Social Security

I don’t believe Social Security is going to be around when I retire, if I even live that long. No, it isn’t from the right wing Republicans, it is just common sense. From my own personal research on both the sites that oppose it, and support the change, I have concluded that unless there is a major change in the way it works, it won’t last.

Those that Oppose the Change

• Would cost too much to implement the new system.

The truth is that those who are already retired won’t see any change and those who are over 45 now won’t see a change. The young generation now (under 45) will see reduced benefits, if at all. The money that I put into Social Security is not my money, it is the governments with the expressed concern that if I live to see retirement, that they’ll pay me later on. What I’m currently paying isn’t even being added to what will be calculated when I retire. Only the last 15 or 25 years before I retire will be totalled. That means that the payment I’m putting into the system now is going to those who have already retired. I have nothing against that since my Grandmother is one of those people, but I’m probably not even paying her a nanocent of the total she is receiving.

The cost it would take to implement a better system to sustain Social Security would be well worth the one time expense. It is better to pay it now, when there is still a surplus, than to wait a decade or two and then say, “Holy Crap, why wasn’t this done in 2003? It is Bush’s fault.” The more time spent in waiting and debating is going to add to the total cost it would take to implement a better system.

• Say Social Security is guarantee.

Social Security isn’t guaranteed, the government has no obligation to give us a cent. The only reason why they would even do so is that the whole population would revolt. Either by a new party being formed that gave Social Security the right way, or a communist revolution (which would totally suck). It is not in the Constitution that they have to pay any money, it is a bill that could be changed or repealed.

• Increase taxes to put more money into the system to save it.

They can’t do this without it coming out that the reason why taxes was increased to 12.7% (half paid by you and the other half paid by the employer) in the mid 1980s was to save the system and add to the surplus. It would also come out that the past presidents have been using the surplus as their own personal piggy bank to finance their projects. President Bush wasn’t the only one, you can’t spend that much and it was done since Nixon (including former president Bill Clinton). To tell the public that they are going to have to increase the taxes to pay for past spending is going to be meant with an outcry (depending on if the media gets this information out there).

I’m not going to pay for something that I’m not going to see anyway. I’m spending money that I need now for something that I’ll probably never see. I wouldn’t mind so much if they hadn’t spent the money they should have saved and if they don’t touch the money they would get with the tax increase. I doubt either, since there is no policement of the surplus in the Treasury.

• There are still enough children being born to continue to pay into the system when they start working.

This would be all well and good if the money for Social Security wasn’t also used for other social causes. It is used for People with Disablities and for those who can’t afford healthcare. Every child would have to work and more than those who make under the poverty line, who also receive a paycheck from SSI.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Media Matters: A Watch Group For Conservatives
• Climate Change – How it is a Win / Win
• Please Spay and Neuter Abusive Parents
• Net Neutrality: Are People Wrong?
• Will Democrats Save Us from Corruption?

I have been waiting for electronic money for a long time, but it may still be a little longer before it becomes the major form and only form of currency. I hardly ever use cash for anything and if a place doesn’t accept a major form of credit card, then I’ll most likely not show up there. Why in a society do we still use physical currency, when we can go to a system that would save millions, if not billions? There are problems with electronic transaction that would need to be solved before a major hacker takes advantage of the system.

Problems

• A hacker can cripple the new system and break the trust of the people.
• The system would have to have a high level of encryption, with extremely low probablity of cracking.
• The system would also have to be easily upgradable in the case of security flaws.
• There should also be an easy to use API for other intuitions to use the nation wide system with security checks and balances.
• There should be a barrier to keep other countries out of the system, except when they comply to a strict security policy.

The system would need a body governing standards and practices for which every company and government acency would follow. Well tested and undergo a harsh hacking tests, the finished product would be open to all companies, big and small.

Changing the way money works, would take a great deal of money and time to complete. The savings in the long run would be worth it, and it would be easier to track fraud (or perhaps create it).

The government would need to sort of set up their own electronic system for which all of the other banks will use. Those who are afraid of government regulations and gaining to much control would freak the hell out. There doesn’t need to be this system, but my vision is that it would be a super computer like the one behind DNS. It could also get rid of the IRS (Yeah!) and help do away with the Social Security.

There needs to be a way for making sure that the person using the card is the owner of the card and not someone who picked the card up and trying to use it.

What Good Will Come of It?< ?strong>

Since banks exist everywhere, it wouldn’t be to hard to sign up an account, whether it is online or at a physical location. Banks also won’t need to have a brick and mortar shop set up everywhere, since everything would be done online anyway. Those that do have Brick and Mortar can allow Internet access and almost do away with real tellers. It would be almost impossible for someone to rob a bank, since there is no physical cash involved and if they do try to steal from the e-cash, then that money would be tractable and wouldn’t do the thief any good.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Media Matters: A Watch Group For Conservatives
• Climate Change – How it is a Win / Win
• Please Spay and Neuter Abusive Parents
• Net Neutrality: Are People Wrong?
• Will Democrats Save Us from Corruption?