Where did the phrase TGIF come from? Wikipedia says it was started by an Akron, Ohio disc jockey in the early 1970s.
Using my critical thinking skills, and wikipedia's lack of citation, I tend to doubt that as the source.
There is a 1978 disco theme movie by the name Thank God Its Friday that won an Academy Award for Best Song in 1979. (Donna Summer perf0rming Last Dance). Not a movie I remember.
Enjoy the weekend!!
.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Thursday, May 28, 2009
First Amendment
The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The first ten amendments to the Constitution are also known as the "Bill of Rights" and refer to the rights of the people not the rights of the government. The founders of this country had just fought a war to throw off the tyranny of the King of England and wanted to ensure that the government being established did not end up being as oppressive as the one discarded.
The House of Representatives has passed legislation (HR 1913) to increase the penalty for a violent crime if it was motivated by hate. I don't understand how Congress can legislate away 'hate'. I understand things people say can be offensive. I have been offended at times and have probably also been offensive, but how can Congress label one set of values (and thoughts) as hateful and illegal and still be within the first amendment? Is punishing motives in addition to actions a form of thought control? Is it more acceptable to beat someone up as long as it is done with love?
I have always thought that the freedom of speech leads by a natural extension to a diversity of ideas, thoughts, and expressions. Just because there is diversity, not every thought will be of value or even for the betterment of society as a whole, but the founders wanted to provide an outlet for minority opinion that could not be suppressed by the majority. This would include speech that would be offensive to the majority of the people.
If the government begins to criminalize some speech as hateful, we have lost freedom and will loose diversity. If you think diversity is bad, then hate speech legislation is good way to limit diversity. I am ok with it as long as everyone thinks like me. (NOT!)
What is your opinion?
.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The first ten amendments to the Constitution are also known as the "Bill of Rights" and refer to the rights of the people not the rights of the government. The founders of this country had just fought a war to throw off the tyranny of the King of England and wanted to ensure that the government being established did not end up being as oppressive as the one discarded.
The House of Representatives has passed legislation (HR 1913) to increase the penalty for a violent crime if it was motivated by hate. I don't understand how Congress can legislate away 'hate'. I understand things people say can be offensive. I have been offended at times and have probably also been offensive, but how can Congress label one set of values (and thoughts) as hateful and illegal and still be within the first amendment? Is punishing motives in addition to actions a form of thought control? Is it more acceptable to beat someone up as long as it is done with love?
I have always thought that the freedom of speech leads by a natural extension to a diversity of ideas, thoughts, and expressions. Just because there is diversity, not every thought will be of value or even for the betterment of society as a whole, but the founders wanted to provide an outlet for minority opinion that could not be suppressed by the majority. This would include speech that would be offensive to the majority of the people.
If the government begins to criminalize some speech as hateful, we have lost freedom and will loose diversity. If you think diversity is bad, then hate speech legislation is good way to limit diversity. I am ok with it as long as everyone thinks like me. (NOT!)
What is your opinion?
.
Labels:
First amendment,
hate speech
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Critical Thinking

Are critical thinking skills still being taught?
Has the 24 hour a day news cycle reduced journalism to being a race to being the first with a story, without concern that the facts may be incorrect?
I read a story on-line recently, but can't locate it for a link, about a 22 year old who added a non-existent quote to a wikipedia page about a recently deceased musician. He wanted to see how quickly false information would travel on the web, and get into mainstream reporting.
A number of newspapers pulled the quote from wikipedia and ran it in their obit articles. Wikipedia pulled the quote from its article because the quote had no citation. (Similar to this blog entry).
An interesting development would have been if the quote creator had used the newspaper's use of his wikipedia quote as the citation to put the quote back on the wikipedia page. And the circle would have been unbroken. But he choose not to complete the deception. He left the quote off the page once it was pulled by wikipedia.
The 22 year old fessed up to his experiment about month after it had taken place. He was waiting to see if any of the newspapers would discover their error. They did not.
The whole point of this entry is to point out that just because something is on the web, in the newspaper or on TV doesn't mean that it is a fact. Fact checkers no longer exist, and I am not sure they ever did exist except in the realm of our expectations.
What is a person to do?
Be a little skeptical. Does what you are reading seem reasonable based on what you already know? Are there other possibilities to what has been reported?
Did I just make all this up? You will have to make a judgement.
.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Swine Flu Update

The media is still hyping the swine flu. Bloomberg.com is now reporting that the 'swine flu is spreading more widely than the official numbers show.'
Uh? What is the basis for the report, other what Bloomberg wants to report? Does Bloomberg now collect medical statistics from seven continents?
'Forty-three countries have confirmed 12,022 cases, including 86 deaths, according to the World Health Organization’s latest tally. ..... The Geneva-based agency is asking vaccine makers to prepare for large-scale production of an inoculation for swine flu, while also ensuring adequate supplies of a shot for seasonal flu, which kills an estimated 250,000 to 500,000 people worldwide each year.'
Am I missing something?
Swine flu has killed 86 people and a normal seasonal flu kills a half of a million people, and the media covers the swine flu story like it could be the end of humanity as we know it.
The Dept of Health and Human Services is ready to spend $ 1 billion to get a stockpile of swine flu vaccine to treat 20 million people. The last time the government pushed a swine flu vaccine on the public (in the early 1970s) people died from a reaction to the vaccine.
What is wrong with this picture? (I mean the media picture, not the one in the upper right corner).
Labels:
government waste,
media
Monday, May 25, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)