Unless you enjoy controversial topics, you may want to skip this one.
This clip was brought to my attention yesterday by my racist colleague Jeramie (he loves it when I say that 
). Okay, he’s not really a racist but he plays one on TV. He was so interested to get my take that he was sort of chomping at the bit. I said, “Well…” at which point he jumped in to say the policeman has a right to do his job unobstructed. I said, “Ok…” at which point he jumped in again to say that the woman who was punched had shoved the cop and thus subject to arrest herself. Every time I opened my mouth he jumped in with reasons that this may not be as open-and-shut as one might think and why this cop might not be a racist. Then I shocked him by saying that I provisionally agree with everything that he had said. He responded, *gulp*. I didn’t say I agreed. I said, “PROVISIONALLY.” As always, the devil is in the details.
There are two reasons that might lead one to assume that I would dump on the cop. One: I’m black. Two: chivalry. A third little known reason is that I also have a history with the police. Then again, most black males in America have a history of SOME kind with the police, regardless the kind of life they have led. More on that later.
In order to assess the appropriateness of the officer’s conduct in this video, it is necessary to know why he was grappling with her. The second woman, who was punched was obviously coming to the rescue of the first because she was being manhandled. We still need a bit of back information though. Obviously, the whole thing came about because the officer wanted to cite someone for J-walking. This is usually a weak charge unless they had endangered drivers on the road by weaving and bobbing through traffic. I think this is the only time people should ever be cited for this. I’ve seen policemen stop people for cutting out of a crosswalk 5 or 10 feet from the curb because they were hurrying to a bus stop or something like that. In most of these cases, the cop is just being a dick (pardon my French) and was probably looking for an excuse to check the person out anyway. read more…
Some times Karma knows what we need better than we do. As I was squirming in my seat uncomfortably after reading a story about a British woman who ripped a man’s testicles clean off with her bare hands—literally (I wonder if she said first, “this will hurt me more than it hurts you sugar”), as if on cue, I came across a video of a woman in a hurry. It’s a woman leaving an airport like a bat out of hell who does a Dukes of Hazzard jump. Her name MUST be Daisy.
So I can’t help but wonder if Daisy Duke in the video was escaping a crime scene and if said crime involved one or more testicles? Oh never mind. Who would imagine someone could do that and that it would take 5 years for her to go to jail?
As I mentioned earlier, Sarah Palin and other drill-happy, big-business-first, individual-rights-second conservatives lied when they said that drilling technology has advanced so much in the last 30 years that environmental catastrophes are no longer a concern. Now after the fact, they are trying to spin the BP spill as everyone’s fault but their own. And as usual, rather than demonstrating even the simple common sense of distancing oneself from failed policies that have gone wrong, they are following familiar patterns of hypocrisy by doubling down and blame shifting—a neat trick given how often they have gone on the record in favor of a completely unregulated oil industry (though you can substitute the word oil for anything that makes money). Observe:
Next, you can expect that they will be telling us that this is no time to retreat. They will say that this is the perfect time to display the old stiff upper lip and stand strong on drilling. Of course it will be hard to do otherwise since Republicans try to block any attempt at ending our dependence on petroleum even though every president for the last 40 years has listed that as a primary goal of the U.S. Aren’t there any prominent conservatives willing to embrace legislation to mandate a gradual weening-off oil?
Sarah Palin surely isn’t such a conservative judging from her writings on ‘that there Twitter box.’ Maybe someone could distract her with fishing and shotguns or offer her a position as Dr. Evil’s new sidekick since she was one of his all-time best students.
BP’s Managing Director Robert Dudley said, “We’re disappointed the oil is going to flow for a while and we’re going to redouble our efforts to keep it off the beaches.” Is there any way to quantify just how little this means to the people on the Gulf Coast whose livelihood will be impacted by this catastrophe? Probably not. Are we supposed to believe that they have been holding something in reserve until now? Like what? Chuck Norris??? Or perhaps they have Harry Potter and his magic wand on retainer?
Candy Crowley asked an excellent question however, which I have been wondering for quite some time. She asked if it had not been true that the techniques they used first were the ones they thought most likely to work and therefore each subsequent technique that they try has an even lower chance of success than the last.
Several important things were said once again in this interview, which were previously said by other BP executives. Mr. Dudley said we have to remember that these techniques are “new.” Really??? Check this out:
I think it is important to understand that oil companies make a huge profit extracting this resource from the Earth. They pay a lot of money to politicians to look out for their interests. When you hear the likes of Sarah Palin using catchy phrases like “drill baby drill” in order to influence the national dialog about energy policy, remember that she doesn’t know any more than you do.
In the 2008 campaign and thereafter, Sarah Palin talked about oil drilling technology as if she was an expert. She said it was safe to do off-shore drilling because the technology we have today makes it safe. Executives of not only the oil industry but also bank CEO’s, the health insurance industry, and a host other corporate entities induce people that are influential or trusted in various communities to make unsubstantiated statements favorable to their respective industries. They count on the credibility of those people to make their supporters fall in line without too much difficulty. Thus, when people who trusted Sarah Palin heard her saying that oil drilling safety had advanced so much technologically, they believed her. Why are those people not outraged now that it is obvious she was lying?
It’s not just her. People give the same blind trust to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and if you’re honest, Fox News itself, which will give air time to anyone who is rides the conservative party line. And let’s face it, conservatives love big business, especially oil executives.
We need to remember this when it’s time to vote again. I think that the worst thing that can happen to Republicans is that they gain ground in 2010. This will reward them for lying to the electorate the last year and encourage them to continue. If they are disappointed, perhaps it will encourage them to prioritize integrity in the future. It will take a strong government by strong individuals to manage big corporations, which have clearly run amok and are quite literally, destroying the ecosystem that we depend on to live.
For starters, let me tell you about my experience with Facebook. I heard Leo Laporte talking about Facebook on one of his many TWiT “netcasts” several years ago. Like many other much-hyped Web 2.0 offerings, it reached a point where one could call it the “buzz on the net,” meaning that everyone was talking about it. When this happens you will get your fill of it on TWiT, especially if you listen to more than one of its shows. One of Leo’s cohorts— it may have been Amber MacArthur in this case—said something to the effect that as a consultant she felt compelled to be on Facebook if for no other reason than to be knowledgeable about it.
As an IT pro for over 25 years who performed consulting services the last time I lived in the Bay area of California, I could certainly identify with needing to be on the bleeding edge of wuzhatnin online. So while the conversation was still ongoing in the netcast in question, I typed www.facebook.com into my browser and hit enter. What I got for my effort was the online version of a brick wall. At the time that I tried this, Facebook had absolutely nothing for non-members, not even a walk-through, a list of features, or an about page.
I will admit, this prompt to create an account was compelling. An excruciatingly enticing case was made for you to check it out by everyone you heard talking about it. Once you actually got the impetus to navigate there, you were determined to check it out just to see what everyone else was talking about. Unlike 99.9% of the Internet, unless you join they got nothin’ for ya—and I mean NOTHIN’. What Facebook represented for each person at this point was a Pandora’s box. I would love to see statistics on how many people approached this rabbit hole and refused to jump in.
This is where I part company with the majority of humanity if you believe Facebook because I closed the tab and never visited Facebook again. I think Facebook had only a few million users at this point and it occurred to me that the number of people who would sign up just to see what it looked like was gigantic and each new profile was helping Facebook add to its value at an extremely rapid pace. Call me old-fashioned but I believe that an enterprise should be willing to earn my business first by demonstrating what my investment of time will provide me, not by making me earn the right to see what it can do for me. Essentially, this business model creeped me out so I went elsewhere. read more…
Lest we think that bias derived from skin color applies to white children only (as in the previous article), the same test was given to black children as well. There was plenty of bias to go around. Among blacks, this behavior is most commonly known by the term “color struck.”
This raises disturbing questions about self-image. It seems that even in the Obama era, black children still lack the kinds of role models in everyday life, that would make them feel good about themselves. Alternatively, it could also be indicative of a behavioral phenomenon brought on by subtle influences about how the brain processes color in terms of how it assigns worth to individuals based on physical appearance. If this is the case, then the idea, “you can’t judge a book by its cover” is a learned behavior that determines how a person will interact with others throughout his life. This means that teaching people to resist the temptation to prejudge another human being based on color is even more important than previously believed and should begin very early in life.
Lest one be tempted to assume that such a behavior, if determined to be natural, might be healthy on some basic level (because how can something determined to be natural be unhealthy right?), one must also remember that the natural human attraction to red fruits for example, would lead to a quick death if acted upon by sheer instinct. Since any naturalist will tell you that the color red in nature is generally a warning of danger and that the overwhelming majority of red fruits, vegetables, and insects are extremely poisonous to humans, tomatoes and apples not withstanding. Having completed survival school during my military years proved very valuable in this regard. In fact, the first thing they taught us is to never eat anything red unless you know what it is.
Question of the day: Is racial bias a socialized behavior? Is it due to lack of exposure to other kinds of people or a natural fear of the unknown? As a species capable of heightened reasoning ability, are we not morally obligated to guide our children past irrational fears or prejudices? It goes without saying that some people actually encourage this kind of behavior from their children.
See the original on CNN.
It is likely that most parents believe they are raising their kids to the best of their abilities with the goal of making them the best human beings possible. That is obviously the goal of this mother. Perhaps more attention needs to be given to how attitudes and perceptions develop over things we tend to not talk about. Maybe that is the point of this.
A wise man once said, “Don’t hunt what you can’t kill.” It seems that some Hollywood bigwigs are trying to apply that saying to Roman Polanski. I said way back in September 2009 that Polanski sycophants and those who think that the rules do not apply to the rich, were trying to get a pass for Polanski who brutally raped a 13 year old girl. After successfully fleeing justice for over 30 years, he was finally captured but not before making several noteworthy films that misguided fools in Hollywood think place him Above The Law (excuse my lack of objectivity over sexual battery against defenseless children). Sorry, Hollywood. Steven Segal he is NOT.
Now Woody Allen, a man infamously disgraced for his incestuous affair with his then under-aged step-daughter leads a new appeal to let bygones be bygones. Unfortunately for Polanski, even as his Hollywood-based PFC supporters stand in line to disgrace themselves on his behalf, yet another under-aged victim has come forward. Actress Charlotte Lewis claims she was assaulted by Polanski at the age of 16, while filming his 1986 film “Pirates.”
Great news for the modern Net Parent
Today’s “Net Parent”—a term for parents raising kids who will grow up in an electronically connected world—got a great potential boost after the announcement of the “.XXX” top level domain (TLD). While it remains true that those new to the web are most familiar with the dot com domain, recent additions like .biz and .tv have become nearly as well-known as the venerable .net, .edu, and .org TLD’s. The majority of today’s Internet users most likely do not remember the .xxx fight during the last round of TLD additions.
After .xxx was proposed, religious fanatics of all ilks came out in droves to oppose it. After all, it was associated with the word “porn” and therefore had to be bad, right? Religious organizations and tele-evangelists all said it would cause us to be inundated with porn online. Yea, we wouldn’t want to have a situation where our junk mail folders are full of porn would we? Oh, wait… So. Due to overwhelming organized opposition by religious zealots and let’s not forget—opportunistic politicians, who were equally outraged I can assure you—the greatest opportunity to filter adult-based content from home networks was lost to families around the world for the time being. read more…
from → Commentary, Technology