Video Games and Porn- a political issue in the making?

Linked to article source- CNN

Going a little off-topic today-

CNN has an interesting piece today entitled 'The Demise of Guys': How video games and porn are ruining a generation.
The key points from the article-

• Authors argue that video games and porn create "arousal addictions"
• Young guys are digitally rewired in a new way that demands constant stimulation
• Video games go wrong when the person playing them is desensitized to reality

 Here's my question to the world today- how long until this becomes a political issue? It is already being addressed in churches and schools. And that tends to be where issues originate before moving into politics. (For instance homosexuality, women's reproductive rights, etc.)

So when will they become political issues? And when it happens, which side will the different parties take?

The Controversy Over CISPA and the Cybersecurity Act of 2012

CISPA, the Cyber Information Sharing and Protection Act, is back in the news, but now in the form of the Cybersecurity Act of 2012. These cybersecurity measures, if passed, would have significant impact on some of the largest corporations in the United States.
The controversial CISPA was passed by the US House of Representatives in April. It passed the House with bipartisan support in April with 248-168, including 42 Democrats in favor. There were 28 Republicans against the bill.
When the Senate returns from the Memorial Day recess, it is expected to vote on its response to CISPA- the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 (CSA), supported by Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Susan Collins (R-ME). This bill has the tentative support of the Obama Administration, which CISPA did not receive.

Read the rest at Support and Opposition of CISPA and the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 at the Motley Fool.

Surprises in Kentucky and Arkansas Primaries for Democrats

Just when you thought the primaries were just a formality and didn't matter anymore, something interesting happens.
President Obama didn't have an opponent in Kentucky, so you would except him to win by a fairly large margin, right? But no! Instead, he only took 57.9% of the vote. Everyone else was "uncommitted."  And that was how his own party felt about him!
And he didn't do much better in Arkansas either. With 70% of the votes in, he only had 59% of the vote. He did face a challenger in Arkansas. A man named John Wolfe, an attorney from Tennessee whose platform includes repealing “Obamacare.” Wolfe took 41% of the vote and was able to win several counties.
Mitt Romney did slightly better in his own primaries, but not much better. He took 67% of the vote in Kentucky, (Ron Paul took 13%), and 69% in Arkansas. Ron Paul and Rick Santorum each took 13%. Even Newt Gingrich did better in Arkansas than he did in many states when he was actively campaigning. He got 5% of the vote.

What does this mean for November? 

Obama has had a difficult time winning even the Democrats in the more conservative states. (Let's not forget the 43% of Democrats in West Virginia who voted for the currently imprisoned felon over the POTUS.) He only took 30% of the primary in Kentucky in 2008, and 26% of Arkansas in 2008. But overall, this probably doesn't mean anything for November. Obama was never going to win those two states, and now we have more proof to support that theory. 

But here's the catch- Kentucky is historically a blue state. So why don't they like Obama more? The Washington Post's The Fix addresses that question today with "Is it racism?" The article is worth a read. 

Arkansas and Kentucky Primaries Tonight

Just so no one thinks I really believe Arkansas is all bigots and rednecks, here's a picture of a pretty place I once visited when I had the great misfortune of living in that miserable state.

It will be a while before we can expect to see all-night election return coverage on the news networks. But politics junkies can still find coverage online when the want it.
Tonight, Tuesday night, Kentucky and Arkansas will take to the primary polls to choose between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. And possibly between Obama and a mystery write-in candidate in Arkansas. Contrary to the rumors, no, that person is not me. 
Romney still needs 800 delegates to clinch the nomination. Paul needs almost a thousand more. But you just keep trying, Rep. Paul! You're just the little engine that could, or couldn't. Probably couldn't. 
And here's a shocking piece of information- whichever Republican candidate wins Arkansas will probably be able to rely on getting all 6 of their electoral votes in the fall, as the state tends to be historically Republican.
I feel I should say something to acknowledge that hideous Washington Post article I already posted about to point out that at least 60 people in Arkansas are bigots that don't like Romney based solely on religion due to a scuffle 120 years ago. But that would just be a waste of my time, now wouldn't it?
As for the primaries, Arkansas has 36 total delegates; 33 tied to May 22 primary; 3 Unpledged RNC delegate. And Kentucky has 45 total delegates; 42 tied to May 22 primary; 3 Unpledged RNC delegates.
If you love politics just so much that you would want to follow the Arkansas and Kentucky returns online, Mashable has a list of them here for you.

Boo on the WaPo

I never intended to use this blog as a defense for Romney or the Mormon faith. But when I see stories like this run in major news outlets, it just makes me mad.
Why would the Washington Post run an article about a very small insignificant group of backwoods bigots in a non-crucial voting area who are holding a grudge over something that happened 150 years ago, if not to try and make Mormons and Romney look bad?
The article served no other purpose. It was not news-worthy, and is barely even interesting. Not to mention, it isn't even that well written, and the author clearly only has a Wikipedia level grasp on Mormon history.
Pointless.

Fighting Trafficking and Poverty at Home and Abroad

A family home along the river in Phnom Penh, Cambodia

I have been thinking and reading about human and child trafficking a lot recently. Ever since I left Cambodia in September it has been a subject never far from my mind. I continue to follow the developments at Riverkids, the organization I worked for, as well as other developments around the world. And my studies have brought me to some contradictory and confusing conclusions.

I hesitate to use the word “politics” in this next sentence, but I can't find a better word to describe my thoughts. My “politics” don't fall easily in line with any one political party. After all the definition of politics is, “the complex or aggregate of relationships of people in society, esp those relationships involving authority or power.” No, that is not what I am about today. I prefer to think of them as passions, beliefs, rights, and priorities, and how these are the things that make up who I am as a person. They are not politics. They are all that I hold dear.

I find that individuals who are passionate about fighting human trafficking tend to be more “left wing” or liberal. There is great irony in such beliefs at times. You see, those of us who are fighting human trafficking are intervening in parts of the world where the government and local leadership is so corrupt that it cannot be trusted. We step in with aid and assistance and provide welfare where none else is found. Educations are provided from donations from individuals around the world, so that the less fortunate citizens of “less developed countries” have a fighting chance at a better future. Some organizations will attempt to educate and reform the governments themselves, but for the most part, the education and reform goes straight to the people.

We do not expect their governments to provide aid or welfare for them. We expect their governments to abuse them, tax them, and continue to oppress them. I think of the families in Phnom Penh, Cambodia who lived along the river (yes, this is where the name “Riverkids” came from), who were forced from their homes when the river rose and the flooding worsened. The government evicted them and hauled them off to live in what amounts to no more than a refugee camp outside of town. No assistance given. No help or transportation to get to the city where their lives and livelihoods were.

In these less developed countries, we (the good Samaritans and humanitarians of the world blessed to be from more developed countries) provide aid and help so that the people will never have to be dependent on their governments again, so that they may stand on their own two feet proud of their accomplishments. We send funds via Kiva.org, we volunteer with humanitarian organizations, we donate our clothes, money, and time. We yell at and protest their governments. We boycott their abusers. We pray for something better.

And yet, back in the United States, we often do the opposite. Forgive me for using a “glittering generality” in my description. But more often than not it is the “liberals” who care about human rights and international development. But here on American soil it is the “liberals” who want to see more government control and intervention. They encourage more welfare and more aid from our government to our less fortunate. And it is the “conservatives” who preach about families and want less government, who are rarely found in humanitarian circles.

If we fight corrupt governments abroad, why do we encourage more government at home? Why would we want to become more dependent upon them here? We have seen what happens around the world when governments force their people to rely upon them for every little thing- and it ends in oppression, tyranny, devastating poverty, and disease. Why would we want that on our own shores?

Let's practice what we preach abroad in our own homes as well. Do not demand for the government to provide a better education- go out and teach others yourself. Do not demand more welfare- go out and give it. Do not allow anyone to ever become dependent on an impersonal system designed to protect the money of the government, and not designed to improve the lives of its people.

Haitians waiting for a handout

A welfare state will never succeed. Even the most well-meaning of governments will always have to operate on a budget, and will have no choice but to protect its coffers. No government will ever effectively be able to function if it is willing to bankrupt itself in order to provide more for its people. No government, ruler, or leader in history, with the exception of Jesus Christ, (that I can think of) has willingly sacrificed itself for its people. So why, why would we ever encourage anyone to become dependent on a government that cannot by design put his or her needs first?

I may have a “bleeding heart” when it comes to humanitarian work, but I will always vote against more government power. I will continue to stand out in the international aid community as the lone, sole conservative who did not vote for Clinton or Obama. (I will also continue to be a big fan of the great work Clinton has done since his presidency in international development.) And I will continue to stand out amongst Republicans as the crusader who wishes they would stop talking about immigration (how many immigrants are trying to escape a corrupt government to come here for a better life?), and instead focus on stopping human trafficking.

If Republicans were to put as much faith and strength into combating human trafficking as they have other social issues, they could bring an end to it on American soil in just a matter of years. Yes, human trafficking most certainly occurs in the United States, and not just abroad. It happens right in front of us on Backpage.com and right in plain sight.

Here are the words of Nicholas Kristofin the New York Times-

“Typically, she’s a 13-year-old girl of color from a troubled home who is on bad terms with her mother. Then her mom’s boyfriend hits on her, and she runs away to the bus station, where the only person on the lookout for girls like her is a pimp. He buys her dinner, gives her a place to stay and next thing she knows she’s earning him $1,500 a day.”

This isn't prostitution. To think this girl is a prostitute is naïve and misinformed at best. This girl is a victim of human trafficking. “Trafficking” does not mean she was moved like cattle across state lines, and sold to the highest bidder. No, trafficking by definition is the sell or trade of a good. And in this case, a 13 yr old girl is the good.

This is my rallying cry, my soapbox, and plea for the day. Conservatives- don't just preach it at home, preach it abroad. And Liberals- do not just teach it abroad, teach it at home. So many from both persuasions hold up an image and tell the world to be just like us, and yet, when the needy come to cross our borders, you turn them away. Where is the humanity and logic in that?

There is no need for a one world order. There is no need for a great equalizing law to make all things “fair.” There is only a need for all good men to do something. Or in the words of Edmund Burke, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Do not allow evil to triumph. Do not do sit by and do nothing.” 

 

Painted by a dishonest brush

I am not a birther by any means. I find the whole thing to be fairly silly. But the new hot topic about President Obama calling himself Kenyan born? Bugs me to no end.

A quick synopsis-
Back in the early 1990's President Obama was still just a student, but a promising one, at Harvard Law. He was ambitious, and to prove so, he had a book deal with a literary agency. Agencies back then used to make up little marketing pamphlets to advertise their up and coming authors and promote their current ones. President of the Harvard Law Review Barack Obama was listed in it with a photo, and a short bio. In it is said, "Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation. He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago's South Side. His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White."

The agency now says that it was a "fact checking error" that he was "born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii."


I for one, am inclined to believe them. It was an error intentionally pushed by Barack Obama himself. After all, foreign born and mixed race makes a student sound more exotic and accomplished in the affirmative action world that we live in. Of course he wanted to make it sound like he was extraordinary and had overcome so much just to be in an American university.

Granted, the part where his Kenyan father was far from uneducated or poor is irrelevant. (His father was a finance minister in the national government, and attended at least two American universities, including Harvard.) Not to mention, all this talk about how he was raised a by a single mother is a little bit misleading as well. She wasn't some poor, abandoned welfare case. She had a Ph.D in anthropology and traveled the world with her young son. Not to mention, she was married to her second husband for nearly 15 years. She didn't always live with either husband as she pursued her own educational goals. Hardly the typical single mother story.

It is no secret that politicians like to paint the picture of their lives with their own special brush and brand of paint. The problem here is that Obama has painted his in a way that crosses the line from "paints a picture" into straight up dishonest. He lied about where he was born in order to make his background sound more dangerous and complicated.

All that "Chicago Southside" talk? He moved there AFTER he went to Harvard. How many Harvard educated lawyers do you know that can't afford to do any better than the supposed gang filled streets of the southside? He moved there because that is where the color and culture was that he wanted to be around. And not because it was the best he could do.

It is the images that he himself chooses to create and disperse that make me uncomfortable. Why didn't he tell the story of being raised in Indonesia by a Ph.D mother, given excellent educational opportunities that he accepted in the States? What was wrong with that picture?

Mormons in the News- a lot!

If you think religion isn't playing a part in this campaign cycle, check out this list of articles just from the last few days-

- Priest to profit: How the Mormon church teaches priesthood holders to lead (Washington Post, May 13, 2012)
- If Harvard Business School were a religion, it could be Mormonism (Washington Post, May 11, 2012)
- Why Mitt Romney shouldn't hide his Mormon leadership (Washington Post, May 11, 2012)
- How Mormons like Romney cultivate business savvy early on (Christian Science Monitor, May 14, 2012)
- Prominent Mormon leaders beyond Mitt Romney (Washington Post, May 10, 2012)
- London Calling for teens at Mormon prom (Washington Post, May 14, 2012)
- Pat Robertson: Romney's faith not an issue (USA Today, May 14, 2012)


Five articles in four days just in the Washington Post alone. Now it must be mentioned that most of them were in the "On Faith" section of the WaPo, and that at least three of them were written by Mormon Church members. (I can personally identify those members, but I cannot say for certain about the other two.)


In fact, Mormons and Mormonism are now in the news so often that the LDS Church official public affairs office has dedicated a portion of its blog to "Mormonism in the News: Getting it Right." Every time a news organization reports on Mormons- and gets it right (which not all organizations do), the www.mormonnewsroom.org site actually provides a link to the story. Doesn't mean it had to be a flattering article. It just had to actually get the facts right. (And at least once, they have called out a news organization for getting the facts just plain wrong.)


The fact that there is even a need to commend news organizations for getting their facts straight is rather ridiculous, don't you think?


It goes without saying that Mitt Romney's run for office has definitely made a major impact on the Mormon church's public profile. (He has not in anyway actually made an impact on the actual teaching and beliefs of Mormons.)

Last week, completely unrelated to religion, I noticed that on the "Anderson" daytime TV show, that there were 3 different major segments on different Mormons (Elizabeth Smart, the "Sister Wives" who are not LDS, or members of the mainstream Mormon church, but are "fundamentalist Mormons," and are a gray area, but I'm counting them anyway, and Stephanie Nielson of the "Nie Nie Dialogues."). I can remember as a child when it was a big deal when ANY Mormon appeared on TV. We stopped everything to watch a Mormon on TV. (We watched a lot of Steve Young football.) Now it happens so very often that no one breaks out the phone tree to alert their friends that a Mormon will be on TV!

I was probably just naive and optimistic when I thought that the religion issue would be dropped when Romney emerged as the presumptive nominee. Silly me.

Seriously, Mr. President? Seriously?

I do not intend to use this blog to just promote Romney and beat up Obama. I do intend to represent both sides and all issues. However, today, I'm going to come right out with my biases and say,

SERIOUSLY, MR. PRESIDENT????

It is making the rounds that our dear President has made a few interesting changes to the official www.whitehouse.gov site. The accusations are so completely ridiculous and outrageous that I had to do my own research to see if it is true. Because, come on, it sounds like a gag or a really bad vast right wing conspiracy internet meme.
Could it actually be possible that Obama has inserted himself into the biographies and accomplishments of past Presidents?
Yes, yes it is.
Here are a few examples, with links!

On Feb. 22, 1924 Calvin Coolidge became the first president to make a public radio address to the American people. President Coolidge later helped create the Federal Radio Commission, which has now evolved to become the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). President Obama became the first president to hold virtual gatherings and town halls using Twitter, Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn, etc.

In a 1946 letter to the National Urban League, President Truman wrote that the government has “an obligation to see that the civil rights of every citizen are fully and equally protected.” He ended racial segregation in civil service and the armed forces in 1948. Today the Obama administration continues to strive toward upholding the civil rights of its citizens, repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, allowing people of all sexual orientations to serve openly in our armed forces.

President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare signed (sic) into law in 1965—providing millions of elderly healthcare stability. President Obama’s historic health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, strengthens Medicare, offers eligible seniors a range of preventive services with no cost-sharing, and provides discounts on drugs when in the coverage gap known as the “donut hole.”

On August 14, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. Today the Obama administration continues to protect seniors and ensure Social Security will be there for future generations.

Now, to be fair, he isn't taking credit for past accomplishments (which some in the vast right wing conspiracy allege). And these little additions are marked with an educational little bullet point that says, "DID YOU KNOW?" above it.  Which does make it slightly less ridiculous (to make it somewhat educational). I'm sure there is some marketing guru out there who came up with this plan (because, no, let's be honest here, I do not, under any circumstances think that a man who has to think about wars, healthcare, gay marriage, and all of the other major issues out there, is really thinking about ways to improve the White House website) thinks this is pretty dang clever. It is an somewhat educational tool. Look up something on Calvin Coolidge (and who hasn't done that from time to time), find an interesting factoid to tie him into modern-day issues. It's not so bad.
But then... it also really screams of using the official White House website as a campaign tool. It's just bad timing. Had it not come right as his campaign is ramping up, I never would have cared.
But then, maybe what is missing is the links to all other presidents? How come there isn't a link from one Roosevelt to another? Where are the factoids showing every President that made a change to Social Security?
So, I'm sure that you, like me, are really curious to see what Obama's marketing person put on the GW Bush page, aren't you? Because you know that was a landmine waiting to be stepped in.
Prepare yourselves. It's pretty funny.

• In 2002, President George W. Bush’s State of the Union was the first to be live broadcast on the Internet. In 2011 and 2012, President Obama’s State of the Union speeches were available in an enhanced live stream version that featured infographics, charts and data side-by-side in real time with the President’s speech.

Yes, instead of mentioning a major legislative initiative of GWB, like he had for all of the other POTUSES, he said GWB gave a speech. And that he, Obama, gave it better.

SERIOUSLY, MR. PRESIDENT?? SERIOUSLY??

Ron Paul - it's about time!

Rep. Ron Paul has sort of, finally, stopped annoying real Republicans dropped out of the race.
He announced today, Monday, that he will no longer waste his money fighting a losing battle compete in primaries in states that have not yet voted. Instead he will continue to annoy Republicans by causing problems at state delegate conventions where he will attempt to get his fans delegate spots.
In his exact words, “Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted. Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have.”
Well, at least he is realistic on that one point. Too bad most of his supporters are not. He did encourage his supporters to still turn out and vote.