Monday, September 28, 2009

Plagiarism and ReTweeting

A few days ago, I tweeted this:

"OMG! Even if I was a birther, why would I sent $30 to this guy to send a few faxes? Aren't faxes, like, free?"

In response to this:


Today, I first noticed on the Rachel Maddow Show that she had a segment in which she discussed this Informercial, which apparently only appeared on the local station at Lubbock, TX. She pointed out that the time slot and the station cost LivePrayer (the creators of the Informercial) about $100. Bill Keller, the host, is apparently an ex-con, and as the Rachel Maddow Show suggest, a current con-man because of this scheme.

For $30, LivePrayer will send a fax to fifty "Attorney Generals [sic]" AND to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding an invesgtigation into Obama's birth. In addition, they will add your name to a petition to send to GOP leaders (notice they don't care if Democratic leaders get the petition or not) and you'll also get a bumper sticker.

So, if LivePrayer convinces four people to send money, then Bill Keller makes a profit off of this thirty minute video. At these kind of prices, he'll make the move to other stations before too much longer.

I later noticed this story airing on Chris Matthews' Hardball, though it was less of a segment than a sideshow item on the Hardball Sideshow, which leads me to believe (though I have no proof on how the inner workings of MSNBC are) that a higher up suggested Maddow and Matthews include a segment on their show about this crackpot. (PS I didn't watch Countdown tonight because it's just not the same without Olbermann. I hope his family is doing okay. I know his dad has been in ill health for some while now.)

I, however, would like to propose a different scenario. I like to think that Rachel Maddow subscribes to my Tweets through some TweetBot user name and that she scooped the story from me, even going so far as to use my line, "why would I send $30 to this guy for a few faxes? Aren't faxes, like, free?"

So, I request, nay, I DEMAND a reference from the venerable Rachel Maddow, lest I charge her with intellectual dishonesty and, dare I say it?, PLAGIARISM!

I'm just joking, I wouldn't do that. However, I would like to close with a few questions:

When you RT something via Twitter that is itself a RT, how many people should you reference in your RT? I think it should always be two unless the 140 character parameter limits you.

Also, if you reference something in real life that you read in a Tweet, should you recognize the fact that you first uncoverered this information in Tweet form?

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Obama Won't Appear on FoxNews???!! WHAAA???

Okay, I'll make this real short. FoxSmear is not a news organization. It does not enhance the field of journalism, their research is spotty if extant, and they are not above making up facts. In the real world, we call that lying, but with FoxSmear, it's fair and balanced.

Last week, Obama went on a whirlwind tour of the major news networks (of which I think it is vain of FoxSmear to count itself in the same league as ABC, CBS, NBC, and Univision) but did not go onto Chris Wallace's show, which is the morning Sunday show on FoxSmear. This upset many people at FoxSmear, not the least of which was Bill O'Reilly. Bill O'Reilly had Chris Wallace on his show to talk about how Wallace's feelings were hurt at not being included in the cameraderie. Nowhere in this exchance do they discuss the possibility that Wallace's show may not have the proper viewing audience, that the President was already committed to five stations making an appearance on Wallace's show that morning impossible, or any other plausible scenario other than Obama has it in for FoxSmear.

Or maybe there's another reason:



That's right. Chris Wallace, broadcast journalist extraordaire, calls the Obama Administration the "biggest bunch of crybabies" he has ever dealt with. Besides the name-calling, is it hypocritical of Wallace to call the Obama Administration "crybabies" while he himself is crying over the fact that Obama won't appear on his show.

Perhaps it was just a slow news day because these two are essentially discussing how they are unable to generate any news by Obama not appearing on "Fox News [sic] Sunday" by not generating any news in a segment on the fact that Obama is not appearing on "Fox News [sic] Sunday." Circular news generation logic, to be sure.

In the interest of being fair and balanced, it is possible that what Wallace says is true: that the Obama Administration calls him daily to complain about the types of stories being levied against them. If this is the case, I would welcome Chris Wallace to appear on this Blog and provide some documentation (e-mails, phone conversations with dates and subject, etc.) that corroborates this fact.

Otherwise, I'm forced to conclude (though this has been a running standard in my mind for some time now) that FoxSmear is NOT a reputable news organization and that Obama not appearing on FoxSmear is tantamount to Obama NOT appearing on the Playboy network. No news is going to be generated either way.

Though, I get the feeling that if Obama did appear on the Playboy network, FoxSmear would have a field day even if what Obama was doing on Playboy was reputable.

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Process Governmentalism

I've always been more concerned with the questions, thought processes, and data input concerning an answer, rather than the answer itself. When I was younger (and to a lesser extent today) I would challenge myself to "prove" a point using a traditionally opposing argument. Something along the lines of 1) We're a Christian nation, 2) Jesus doesn't like guns, therefore 3) Guns should be banned.

I don't actually think (nor does anyone reputable) that we're a Christian nation, but I do think guns should be outlawed. I use a political example because I'm concerned with some of the process governmentalism going on today.

For instance, a large portion of today's debate in the political arena surrounds health coverage for all Americans. On one side, we have the elected majority attempting to capitalize on a large market share of the necessary votes in Congress to drive through a bill that is sub-optimally aimed at covering those that do not have health insurance, or more accurately, can't get affordable health coverage.

On the other side, we have an elected minority that feels as if it has been shoved in the corner and is lashing out at anything even approximating healthcare. This side attempts to leverage arguments and counter-arguments against any healthcare legislation, many attempts of which disagree with one another!

Which begs the question: If I was a Democrat, what Conservative argument would I use to justify healthcare?

To which I would respond, healthy people are more productive. More productive people earn higher incomes over a longer period of time. This higher income over a course of many years results in multiplier effects that radiate outward and improve the economy as a whole. Naturally, some people (such as the retired) will not create any multiplicative effects because they will not be generating any new productivity. This is why it makes as much sense (if not more) to guarantee health coverage for younger Americans (who could conceivably be taken off the field of productivity if they die or are rendered disabled because of a sickness they couldn't get cured because of lack of healthcare) as it does to insure the elderly (through Medicare).

Don't get me wrong. I think this is an abysmal excuse to legislate a more socialized healthcare. The real reason is the moral imperative: we as a nation have a duty to help our fellow citizens. While the economics of universal health coverage simply make good economic sense, human beings cannot be quantified as a dollar rating. Or at least they shouldn't be.

Another argument from the Democrats using traditional Republican/conservative arguments: National Defense. If a nation's population is healthy, then in the event that the nation had to reinstate the draft, or there was a foreign invasion on American soil, the American military would be less encumbered by the fact that it had a healthy population that could rise up and fight alongside the active military.

Unfortunately for the purposes of arguing the opposing viewpoint, there's not really a strategy the Republicans/conservatives could use for arguing against Universal Health Coverage that uses a traditionally Liberal/Democratic argument. The Republicans are trying to use the argument that nationalized healthcare would impinge upon our freedoms (I don't buy the reasoning that anything the government does is innately doomed to failure), by stating that the government takeover of healthcare would limit choices because more people would flock to the public option because it would be subsidized and so much more affordable. But if you're taxes are paying for it anyway, why wouldn't you flock to the public option? It'd be like recouping some of your investment. As to choice, individuals in Arkansas would have access to a wide variety of public options. Other states would have other choices. In Arkansas, anyway, I would have more options with the Federal government's plans, than I would if I searched through the Private options. So, the "impinges on our freedoms" argument doesn't really work, since essentially the public option IS private insurers ultimately.

The only other 'liberal' argument I can think of that the Republican/conservatives might be able to use is one regarding civil rights. If it could be shown that because a public option has a habit of rejecting someone's coverage on an race/creed/religion/class/sex basis, then the Republicans could argue that the public option is unfair to a certain segment of the population and that it should not be legislated for. Of course, then they would have to admit that the private insurers do the same thing, which as I understand they haven't. Neither have I seen a standard argument for removing the 'pre-existing conditions' clause from the Insurer's Toolbox for Rejecting Coverage. I also get the feeling that if liberal/Democrats felt that a public option would be additionally racist/sexist/etc.ist, then they would probably encourage another option.

So, essentially, since I'm not able to argue the 'Null' hypothesis successfully in the Republican instance (and come to think of it, neither can I successfully argue the traditional Republican argument anyway), the opposite must be true, and the public option is indeed the way to go in the National Debate. There is always, however, the theory that I have not accumulated enough evidence and statistics and that a more superior answer is out there.

To that I say: Single Payer.

Thursday, September 3, 2009

End Beck

Okay, I admit it. Whenever Glenn Beck was on CNN Headline News, the softcore version of CNN Real News, I had a tendency to head over to the channel to watch it and see what crazy things Beck was going to say next. I think he had about as much edginess as Nancy Grace. At least he has better hair.

I never thought that all that air-time I was giving him would give someone the idea that he should go mainstream. Now, he's on a more respected news station, and I can't even bear to flip through his channel in case he might be on (he gets to be a guest on a lot of other shows that aren't his despite him not really being an expert on anything). I actually get to channel 45 and manually hit 47 so that I don't accidentally give FOX any coverage. I'm worried that Beck might get his own newspaper.

So, for everyone out there that has to put up with his mindless rabble, I apologize. I thought he was harmless. When he was on CNNHN, his lack of depth and understanding was tempered by the fact that he was relatively soft-spoken. I guess now that he gets more viewers, he figures he should be more loud-mouthed with his lack of depth and understanding.

I'm not going to comment much on his lack of credentials and his singular ability to ignore everything that makes journalism...well, journalism....., but I will comment on one item because it's September and many patriots out there don't like people besmirching our recent history.

Because Obama signed into law a bill recognizing September 11 as "National Day of Service," Beck has been very upset stating that no one is up in arms about this and Obama did not consult anyone serious (and especially the families) when he signed this into law.

1) If he signed a Bill into law, then Congress first approved the bill. Therefore, he had de facto consultation with the Congress via the bill passing both Chambers. Since the Chambers are made up of politically motivated Representatives and Senators, they must have some support for this bill from the public.
2) Nobody is up in arms because there has been support for a National Day of Service as far back as 2004 and somce type of Remembrance Day since 2002.

As an additional, I find it reprehensible that Beck is feigning sympathy with the victims of 9.11 families on this issue when he has said in the past, "Oh, shut up. I'm so sick of them [the victim's families] because they're always complaining."

The real issue, as Beck demonstrated with his "Obama is a racist" comment, is that Beck has a deep-seated hatred for Obama and even though 90% of Obama's presidency has been indistinguishable from Bush's presidency (something I'm not supportive of) because it is from Obama, Beck hates it.

And because I (and others like me) found Beck humorous and harmless back on CNNHN, he now has a larger audience to spread his hate.

For that, I am truly sorry.