Thursday, February 15, 2007

Politics and Elections 2008

The political ads are coming. They're already here on the internet. There are plenty of anti-[name-a-party or name-a-candidate] pages out there in internet-land, especially for the more popular candidates. Democrat or Republican, Independent or whatever, SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE out there has some type of grudge against them, or simply doesn't like what they believe they or their party believe in (make sense?).

And, there are a lot of lies and half-truths going around in email about them, too. Heck, I was receiving emails in 2005 that said "Don't wait until 2008", lambasting BOTH parties for Social Security problems (which were all lies, btw).

What can you do?

  1. Don't believe everything you read in email or on the internet.
    Just because a "friend of a friend" sent it to you, just because there's a famous name associated with it, just because it appears to come from an authority who's signature is on it, doesn't make it true. Read on to see why.
  2. Be careful about news stories, even from trusted sources.
    Even they can be duped. Believe me it's happened in the past, and it continues to happen on a fairly regular basis. DO NOT believe tabloid "news" stories. While they purport to have sources, sometimes that source is simply the writer's imagination. And remember that every party or individual have been known to "mention" propaganda about themselves or their opponents. Sometimes it's people lower on the totem pole that passes it on, sometimes prompted by party/candidate or managers, who will normally then have plenty of "plausible deniability", meaning "You can't blame ME for that".
  3. Remember that Politics is a realm of false promises.
    The idea of each party and individual in the race is to get elected and try to get their agenda run. They will make as many plausible promises as they can. Sometimes, they, themselves, actually believe that they can do what they promise. HOWEVER, remember that government has a lot of "checks-and-balances" (sometimes "red-tape"), which means that a LOT of people have to sign-off on those promises before they can be kept.
  4. Don't perpetuate false emails.
    If you get an email that says something bad about someone else; that seems a little "funny"; that trivializes good deeds or glorifies bad; that may even be something you, yourself firmly believe, CHECK IT OUT. There are PLENTY of sites out there refuting these emails daily. I have a page of them and will tell you where it is, shortly. Use keywords from the emails in the search boxes, and see if they've already investigated it. See what they already have for each person, each subject, etc. The names (individual and party) in forwarded emails are subject to change at the whimsey of any sender who received it.
  5. Don't CREATE false emails.
    Many people read pages and boards that go along with their own idealogy and beliefs. When someone at those sites or boards writes or "passes on" something they think is funny, true or not, sometimes just a simple joke, others will believe it as Gospel, cut-and-paste it into an email and send it off to friends, who send it off to their friends, who... (get the idea), most everyone adding their comments. Have you ever played the game (I forget the name) where you get 10-20 people together. One whispers something to someone, who (supposedly) repeats it to the next person, who repeats it to the next, who... and so on? The vast majority of the time, by the time it gets to the last person, the information has changed so much that it's almost unrecognizable. Emails are the same. While forwarding and cut-and-paste negate some of the changes, some people add their own comments, things they believe are related, cut-and-paste signatures that weren't on the original, etc., until the email you get is completely unrecognizable from the original. This happens regularly. Don't send an unsourced email. Don't send anything but the link, itself. That way, everyone can read it, and it doesn't go through the morphing that most of the negative emails go through.
  6. Whether you start or wish to forward emails, INCLUDE SOURCES.
    If you do what I suggested you NOT do in #5, INCLUDE THE PAGE FROM WHICH YOU COPIED IT, and realize that somewhere in the forwarding process that source will probably disappear. Try to put it where it CANNOT be removed. If it's something you get that you wish to forward, try to find out if it's true or not. If not, include your source(s), and send it back to the person who sent it to you. If you believe in it, include comments of your own, but be sure you can differentiate between your comments and the original email, again realizing that somewhere down the road, they will probably either disappear or be merged into the original. About the only way you can be sure that anything you write does not get changed/forwarded is to write a webpage yourself and only send a link. Remember, though, that someone down the road will probably cut-and-paste what you wrote, either claiming themselves to be the author (I've seen things that started in USENET (think of the old-style computer bulletin boards) appear in articles, editorials and letters to the editor, verbatum, with the one that included it being the only "author".)

Email is a wonderful way to connect with new and old friends and family, but can also be used to sow and perpetuate dissent and anger. (See all the emails about blacks, Muslims, the Middle-East, Celebrities, etc.) The internet has a LOT of valid information out there, but there are a lot of ture-sounding jokes, half-truths and lies about almost very subject, especially politics.

Remember this every time you want to create or forward an email about politial issues and people.

Some of the sites to find out the TRUTH about emails can be found at my main site's Flim-Flam (Rumors/Urban Legends/Virus Hoax) Links (page section) and some of the articles and many-forwarded emails can be found in my Flim-Flams Subsection. Check them out.

BigDaddyBS (Bill Sanders)

Friday, February 09, 2007

Honors for Our Iraq War Heroes

I have found out that there are many heroes of this war who have not received medals. (See Iraq has heroes, so where are their medals? - Nightly News with Brian Williams - MSNBC.com)

Am I the only one who finds this callous and unfeeling? Why are we waiting? With the reporting plethora of embedded reporters, the daily reports on action, the many still- and video-cameras held by our own soldiers, you cannot use the argument that there is not enough proof.

To me, this is as bad as the way many treated the Vietnam vets when they came home. These guys and gals are putting their lives on the line. Many are wounded and want to go back to help their buddies. Many DO return. I'm not saying that everyone who goes to Iraq needs a medal (even if just going makes them a hero), but those like the one described in the article above should get the ones they deserve immediately.

So, what's keeping them? Well, I could show my Republican side and say that it's the Democrats in congress... After all, though a congressional majority voted for the war, the Dems have all decided that since it's so unpopular, they should be against it. (Votes, ya know?) And, like passing out condoms in school can make some people believe that that means we condone teen sex, giving medals to Iraq war heroes COULD make it seem that they condone the war. No... I don't believe that this is the case. (At least I HOPE not!) However, I can see where SOME may believe that.

It's been four (4) years since the war started (March 19, 2003). How long do some of the heroes and/or their families have to wait? Why aren't medal ceremonies (and the stories behind them) reported by any but the local media, if at all?

These men and women deserve recognition, though most will humbly say its the ones they saved that deserve it.

Let's make sure it's not because it's an unpopular war that they don't seem to be getting it. I call on the major news networks and other media to start pushing congress and whoever else is responsible to review the cases and get these people their medals, and to show the world we HONOR OUR HEROES.

Bill Sanders

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Toy Recalls

They are doing a massive recall of "Easy Bake Ovens" (see http://www.charlottesvillenewsplex.tv/news/headlines/5597091.html for one) because there have been reports of children getting their hands caught and burned in them.

Easy Bake Ovens have been around for since 1963. I'm sure there have been prior reports of hands being caught and burns. I seem to remember burning my fingers on the damn light bulb and pans we pulled out. (This was YEARS ago... :-\) Same with the Creepy-Crawler makers and a few other items that get hot. So why now?

I'm sure it has to do with today's lawsuit-happy society. It's also possible the new model catches hands easier, but I believe the threat of litigation made them do the recall.

There seems to be a lot of things that we, as kids did, that our kids can't experience, now-a-days. Parents are (sometimes rightly) too careful with what they allow their kids to do - like play outside without adult supervision (rightly), like playing with many of the toys we used to play with because they have "choking hazards" in them, like eating the (hard) paste from school (I think it was made with flour, and they must have added a bit of sugar in it, because it tasted pretty good back then! LOL), etc. Some toys have gone "by the wayside" because of the dangers: Have you seen many Creepy-Crawler sets around? The forms got hot, if I recall ... I think they made a comeback a while back, but haven't seen any commercials for some time... What about all those games with "small choking hazard" parts - Hungry, Hungry Hippo; Monopoly (OK... Maybe for older kids, but baby bro like to play with the hotels, right?); Scrabble for Kids; hell, Pick-up-Sticks had pointy ends!

And how do some products remain on the market for so long, despite their obvious dangers? How 'bout "choking hazards" of GI Joes, Barbies, and the like? They come with accessories (rifles, pistols, boots, high-heels, purses, etc.) that are small enough to put in your mouth... Those little wooden people used in the larger Lego things have hats and arms that can come (or be chewed) off causing choking hazards...

We played with HUNDREDS of toys that could/should have killed or seriously injured us. We played (God forbid) OUTSIDE with friends and no adult supervision. We swang on swing sets simply set on the ground (the legs weren't buried in concrete to counterbalance the weight)... We slid down HOT METAL SLIDES at the park and almost every playground. We went fishing in the park lagoon with REAL fish-hooks (and let me tell you.. they hurt! when they stick into your finger!) We jumped off our porch about 5' to the ground, and did little more than get stingers in our ankles, and if we landed wrong and twisted it, we just stopped jumping off the porch for a few days... We played Combat (a great show!) with toy guns and air rifles (friends' ... my parents would never buy me one...), shoving plugs of dirt into the barrels so they air rifles would "smoke" more like the real things we saw on TV... We skated around on metal skates that attached to our shoes... This only worked if we had an OLD set of GOOD shoes... The skates never locked down well on tennies'...

We used to use ice cubes and butter on burns we got from the stove, touching a hot pan, touching the edge of the oven or the oven rack or pan being pulled out... Mom knew how to put a lid on the pan (or throw salt on it) to stop a fire in it... We knew how to close the oven door while broiling, if it caught fire... We knew how to turn OFF the damn things we turned ON that caught fire and how to put those fires out.

We skinned our knees, scraped our hands and elbows, got stuck by thorns of many types, sometimes friends broke a finger, arm or leg on swing sets, and no one sued anyone... We fell off numerous swings (banging our heads), or "Jungle-Jim" bars; fell (or jumped) out of trees (sometimes breaking or spraining something, sometimes tearing clothes), fell off our bikes in the street and (usually) didn't get hit by a car; got hit in the face with basketballs, footballs, "kick-soccer" balls (those red things at school?); sprained wrists, ankles, knees, elbows; got stung by bees in the yard; stepped on rusty nails, and somehow we survived it all. And I don't recall ONE of our neighbors or friends suing or being sued. (Heck... I had a friend hit himself in the head with a claw hammer we were using to build something... No one even THREATENED a lawsuit... It was HIS stupidity for doing it to himself... Even if it was OUR hammer he did it with...)

Why have we suddenly decided we can sue for our, or our children's', own stupidity? Because some lawyer, somewhere, decided that they could make BooCoo bucks by suing the people with BIG money for something, and other lawyers decided THEY wanted to make some money, too.

Easy Bake Ovens SHOULD NEVER be used without adult supervision. The light bulbs used to cook the product gets hot, and the pans get hot, just like in a real oven... Remember... it has to get hot enough to COOK the stuff! And parents - With ANY item that gets hot like this, or has the potential to burn kids, you should MAKE SURE they know how to unplug it... Anything that uses electricity has the potential to start a fire. They should know how to deal with it. So should you.

(Oh, and those little plastic plug covers that are supposed to keep your kids from sticking screwdrivers and other things into the light sockets? They are potential chocking hazards, too, ya know? :-) )

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Veterans Against the Iraq War

There's a new commercial playing around Indiana, and I'm sure, elsewhere, where Senators and House members have professed support for the presidents planned escalation surge.

It goes, "One the one hand... " listing those who've come out AGAINST the build-up - "2/3 of the American people", the bi-partisan majority in congress, the Iraq Study Group, and "veterans like us...". THEN, they show a veteran (apparently) who's lost an arm in the war. He says "On the other hand, there's George Bush...", as if ONLY he is for escalation.

There are a few things I don't like about it:

  1. Where do they get the 2/3 number?
    • Those who don't approve of the job the President is doing? Not all of them are against the war. They more disapprove based on other foreign or domestic policies.
    • Those who voted in the last election? Dems won, but not by a 2/3 margin, by any stretch of the imagination, and while the idea of a "new direction" for certain policies was the platform and that voted on, has ANYONE seen ANYTHING but bitching and complaining about the war, drafting of referendums about the war and escalation, or almost anything else the president promotes? I haven't. If they REALLY wanted to take all they talked about before the election in a new direction, they need to work on IT, too. Hmmm?
  2. It makes it seem that ONLY the president is FOR the escalation, and EVERYONE else is against it, which is not true. Otherwise, they why do they need the commercial, right?
  3. The last line said by the one-armed vet: "If you support escalation, you don't support the troops." WRONG! That is just so patently wrong, I can't believe they're even using it.

It ends with another vet exhorting you to call your congressman (by name - apparently only those FOR the escalation) and tell him/her you're against it.

Now, I understand that there are vets against the war. I understand that the media reports (MUCH) more on those who are against the war than those vets FOR the war and why. (Showing wounded vets who believe we shouldn't be there... Remember, they shoot for ratings, and vets against the war is controversial and news.

But I also understand that many who have been there, many who are injured, some grievously, WANT TO RETURN. They BELIEVE in what the president and others are trying to do. The BELIEVE in their fellow soldiers. They BELIEVE in the Iraqis general population. They BELIEVE in what we/they are there for. For example:

Pete Herrick, 39, who was paralyzed from the neck down after three weeks in Iraq, says many members of the media won't talk to him because of their liberal slant, which doesn't mesh with his views."When they find out I don't want to bash the president," says Herrick, who lives in Fort White, "the interview's over."A political and military junkie, Herrick thinks that years of sectarian religious violence would have continued in the region without U.S. intervention.

[Source: http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061113/NEWS/611130408/1004/RSS&source=RSS]

I believe it is unconscionable for the US Press (I could almost understand the rest of the world doing it, but...) being totally unwilling to talk to ANY and ALL vets, and get their views, even if they don't want to "bash the President", "bash the war", or talk to those who've actually thought about it, especially those who have been there. It would be even worse if they DID talk to them, getting their views about wanting to return, then only reported about their injuries, including FULL interviews with only others who are against the war.

What happened to reporters' objectivities? What happened to "fair and balanced" reporting, no matter what the reporter or their editors believe?

And, as far as that commercial goes, DO NOT EVER believe that "if you are FOR the escalation you are against the troops" crap in general. Being allowed to believe anything we want, no matter how right or wrong it is, is one of our freedoms. In other words, DO NOT EVER assume that those FOR the escalation ARE NOT for the troops.

You have the right to your opinion as much as the next guy. If you're against the war, you have the right to say so. Conversely, if you're for that war, you should also have the right to say so, too. BOTH cases should be reported by the media, especially an IMPARTIAL media.

Either way, DO NOT tell me I am "for" or "against" anything, based on my belief on the war.

Sunday, February 04, 2007

COLTS WIN! WOO HOO!

The Indianapolis Colts have won Superbowl XLI (41). It should, but I know it won't silence the critics who say ANY of the following:


"Dome Teams" can't win the Superbowl, especially in the rain.
"Nice Guys" can't win, period.
"Peyton is a great quarterback, but he can't win the big one."
"The Colts' are too small to win against the larger, stronger teams."

With the Superbowl win, all of the above have been absolutely PROVEN FALSE.

And lest you believe "old people don't care" about this subject:

This is a picture of my 91yo grandmother, Alice Elizabeth Glover Sanders Gray celebrating the win. She's sharp as a tack, and never forgets the game. (She knows the schedule better than most of us do!) She dons her Peyton Manning #18 Jersey for every Colts game and castigates the referees for every call against her team (even when they make the right ones).

Now Indy just needs to get Lucas Oil Stadium done, and win the bid for the 2011 Superbowl!

GO COLTS!