Secretary of State John Kerry made a recent comment about Israel and the two-state solution and used the word apartheid, and almost as fast as the recording went public, the backlash and outrage begin, and all it about the use of the word and Secretary Kerry. As for the word, well, here's a thought.
If the word apartheid fits the situation, then call it for what it is, apartheid. It is a word not exclusive to South Africa and to discrimination by race. It has broader application, and can be used to raise a point about a situation, such as the Middle East between Israel and the Palenstinians as Kerry made.
If you don't believe Israel can't create an apartheid state, then you need to consider Gaza, which has self-determination and self-governance, but their access to the world is almost entirely controlled by Israel on three sides, and only the southern border with Egypt is not controlled by Israel.
Israel controls their utilities (water and electricity), energy, telecommunications, and the flow of goods and people through checkpoints. If that's not control of a people, then I don't know what is, and while it's not complete apartheid, and the word doesn't entirely fit, it does fit to enclose Palenstinians.
And lets consider Kerry wasn't the first person to call the future of the Middle East as possibility being apartheid, many Israelis have used it, and he wasn't the first senior American official to use it, Jimmy Carter used to in his book about the Israeli-Palenstinian situation.
Let's not jump on Kerry for raising the issue with a word. We should be focused on the solution for the future of the Palenstinians, who need it more than any people in the Middle East. They need their independence, control of their borders, especially with the Mediterrean Sea, and they need Israel to agree to help them build their economy.
That's what Kerry is trying to do, so let's focus on what he's trying to do than him over a word.
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Can't Win for Losing
After the recent Oso mudslide which killed tens of people and destroyed a whole neighborhood and while the cleanup and search continues the lawsuits are already being filed by homeowners against the county and other agencies who apparently knew of the hazard risk and "didn't do anything" about it.
Well, this is one of those situation between the role of government and the rights of private property owners. They know some in local, state and federal government agencies knew after the the 2006 mudslide another is not just possible but likely.
The question is when and how severe. That no one knew other than the river at the foot of the hillside was slowly creating the environment for another one with every flooding carving into the hillside undercutting the stability of the slope.
Well, this is one of those the government can't win for losing. It doesn't matter what people in the goverment agencies knew, becuase they were doomed no matter what they did and because there was no way to alleviate the damage.
If the government had acted to restrict development in the neighborhood, property owners and especially developers would sue for violating their rights. If the government didn't act, as what happened, they'll be, as they are being, sued for not acting.
If they told property owners about the risk, they'd be criticized as chicken little after the 2006 mudslide. If they didn't tell, they'd be criticized for not telling property owners, and then, you guessed it, be cricitized.
It's the circular arguement against government, blame them for not saying and then blame them when they say. Blame them if they act and then blame them if they don't act. No matter what the government agencies, they lose.
They lose because property owners will always argue their rights for their property over or against anything the government says, proposes or does. This is the standard argument against flood insurance but then against the government when floods happens, blaming the government for over reacting and the asking the government to bail them out of their stupidity.
And these are often the same people who argue their independence against government intervention in their lives and rights, until of course, nature or events prove them wrong, then argue the failure of government and the responsibility to be compensated for their own failure.
Maybe the government officials flipped the proverbial coin after the 2006 mudslide about saying anything and acting, tails the property owners win and heads the government loses. Just be ready when it happens and people want someone else to blame than themselves.
Well, this is one of those situation between the role of government and the rights of private property owners. They know some in local, state and federal government agencies knew after the the 2006 mudslide another is not just possible but likely.
The question is when and how severe. That no one knew other than the river at the foot of the hillside was slowly creating the environment for another one with every flooding carving into the hillside undercutting the stability of the slope.
Well, this is one of those the government can't win for losing. It doesn't matter what people in the goverment agencies knew, becuase they were doomed no matter what they did and because there was no way to alleviate the damage.
If the government had acted to restrict development in the neighborhood, property owners and especially developers would sue for violating their rights. If the government didn't act, as what happened, they'll be, as they are being, sued for not acting.
If they told property owners about the risk, they'd be criticized as chicken little after the 2006 mudslide. If they didn't tell, they'd be criticized for not telling property owners, and then, you guessed it, be cricitized.
It's the circular arguement against government, blame them for not saying and then blame them when they say. Blame them if they act and then blame them if they don't act. No matter what the government agencies, they lose.
They lose because property owners will always argue their rights for their property over or against anything the government says, proposes or does. This is the standard argument against flood insurance but then against the government when floods happens, blaming the government for over reacting and the asking the government to bail them out of their stupidity.
And these are often the same people who argue their independence against government intervention in their lives and rights, until of course, nature or events prove them wrong, then argue the failure of government and the responsibility to be compensated for their own failure.
Maybe the government officials flipped the proverbial coin after the 2006 mudslide about saying anything and acting, tails the property owners win and heads the government loses. Just be ready when it happens and people want someone else to blame than themselves.
Saturday, April 26, 2014
Majority Rule
For the last few years white republicans, especially tea party activists, have been arguing and winning court judgements discriminating against minorities, citing the right of the majority to rule, forgetting the laws also state the majority also rules for the protection of the minorities. They have ignored and even dismissed this notion.
So what will those same people and their children say when in about a generation, and in some states in half that time, whites will be the minority, and the new majority can say and do the same thing to whites? How will whites feel when they becme what they've long thought and expressed about minorities as second class citizens?
What will they do when the new majority redistricts states to reduce the chances of whites to win elections, to reduce the advantages in treatment for schools, jobs, etc. for whites? What will they do when the House of Representatives and the Senate has more minority members than white members?
What will whites do when Florida, Texas, California and other states have a solid majority of non-white citizens with an growing population to increase their majority. What will they do when the new majority decides to enact laws calling crimes by whites against them hate crimes?
Whites don't seem to realize the fight to ensure the "majority rule" won't last when they become the minority and everything they did will be undone and they have to argue for rights to be protected for the same reasons they took them away when they were the majority.
What will whites do when the term caucasian refers to a minority race?
So what will those same people and their children say when in about a generation, and in some states in half that time, whites will be the minority, and the new majority can say and do the same thing to whites? How will whites feel when they becme what they've long thought and expressed about minorities as second class citizens?
What will they do when the new majority redistricts states to reduce the chances of whites to win elections, to reduce the advantages in treatment for schools, jobs, etc. for whites? What will they do when the House of Representatives and the Senate has more minority members than white members?
What will whites do when Florida, Texas, California and other states have a solid majority of non-white citizens with an growing population to increase their majority. What will they do when the new majority decides to enact laws calling crimes by whites against them hate crimes?
Whites don't seem to realize the fight to ensure the "majority rule" won't last when they become the minority and everything they did will be undone and they have to argue for rights to be protected for the same reasons they took them away when they were the majority.
What will whites do when the term caucasian refers to a minority race?
Adobe
There are days I wonder what the folks at Adobe are doing. They moved their business model from selling applications through Creative Suite 6 (CS6) to subscriptions with Creative Cloud (CC) while continuing updates to CS6 applications.
Ok, I bought into it because I was using Adobe Muse which was a good Web design application last year and wanted to get away from Dreamweaver (DW) CS6 with sucks compared to DW CS5/5.5, because it can't remember the user's window setting and preferences.
Anyway, since they converted to the subscription model, and especially after the introduction of OS-X 10.9 and the subsequent updates, they haven't updated either Muse or Dreamweaver even after knowing both have issues and problems with OS-X 10.9 versions.
They have updated some of the CC applications, even Photoshop CC, Camera Raw and DNG Converter, in part because they have to keep up with all the new camera brands and models. They've updated other applications, including the updater application more than any application.
So why not Dreamweaver and Muse? I have a response from them about DW stating they're aware of the problems and are on the list of fixes. Ok, like when can we expect an update because for now it's effectively unusable since it fills the console logs with endless messsages.
Even DW CS6 has problems with the endless message they admit they know and plan to fix. As for Muse, it won't open where you left when you closed it. You can't hide it because the window won't hide but the menu bar options do.
Anyway, my point is that my introduction subscription converting last year for the Muse subscription (it was only available by subscription) to the full CC package for a reduced rate ends July 1st. Right now I only really use, or did use, DW CC and Muse. All the other apps are only slight upgrades from CS6 versions.
And this is the point, or more the question, what good is the subcription with the promise of on-going updates and upgrades if they don't offer them? No one can argue the subcription isn't better than buying the apps, at least financially, but Adobe was better updating them when they sold them than they do with the subscription.
And maybe that was their goal, to get the regular revenue from the subscription, especially people just getting into their application than longtime users like me who has all the version from CS2. Really. I would prefer keeping CS6 with real updates and then buy CS7 after it's introduced and updated a time or two than what Adobe is doing now.
But that's not the choice users have anymore. You either subscribe to use applications which will eventually not work as users found with OS-X 10.9 which broke all of the apps up through CS5, and only CS5.5 and a few CS5 apps which weren't upgraded to CS5.5 along with CS6 applications.
Yeah, Adobe used to design their apps to be backward compatible with Apple OS-X until Apple introduced OS-X 10.8 which broke some old CS package apps and more so with OS-X 10.9. Who do you blame if you have and want to continue those old apps, Adobe for not doing what they used to do or Apple for initially making changes forcing Adobe to decide?
And that's likely one reason why Adobe switched to the subcription, to be able to upgrade apps for users as Apple updated and upgraded OS-X, but Adobe doesn't seem to be doing even that while getting our money every month.
Makes you wonder if it's worth it, at least until OS-X 10.10 breaks all CS apps forcing you to Adobe CC apps and the subscription. After all isn't it really about money than products?
Ok, I bought into it because I was using Adobe Muse which was a good Web design application last year and wanted to get away from Dreamweaver (DW) CS6 with sucks compared to DW CS5/5.5, because it can't remember the user's window setting and preferences.
Anyway, since they converted to the subscription model, and especially after the introduction of OS-X 10.9 and the subsequent updates, they haven't updated either Muse or Dreamweaver even after knowing both have issues and problems with OS-X 10.9 versions.
They have updated some of the CC applications, even Photoshop CC, Camera Raw and DNG Converter, in part because they have to keep up with all the new camera brands and models. They've updated other applications, including the updater application more than any application.
So why not Dreamweaver and Muse? I have a response from them about DW stating they're aware of the problems and are on the list of fixes. Ok, like when can we expect an update because for now it's effectively unusable since it fills the console logs with endless messsages.
Even DW CS6 has problems with the endless message they admit they know and plan to fix. As for Muse, it won't open where you left when you closed it. You can't hide it because the window won't hide but the menu bar options do.
Anyway, my point is that my introduction subscription converting last year for the Muse subscription (it was only available by subscription) to the full CC package for a reduced rate ends July 1st. Right now I only really use, or did use, DW CC and Muse. All the other apps are only slight upgrades from CS6 versions.
And this is the point, or more the question, what good is the subcription with the promise of on-going updates and upgrades if they don't offer them? No one can argue the subcription isn't better than buying the apps, at least financially, but Adobe was better updating them when they sold them than they do with the subscription.
And maybe that was their goal, to get the regular revenue from the subscription, especially people just getting into their application than longtime users like me who has all the version from CS2. Really. I would prefer keeping CS6 with real updates and then buy CS7 after it's introduced and updated a time or two than what Adobe is doing now.
But that's not the choice users have anymore. You either subscribe to use applications which will eventually not work as users found with OS-X 10.9 which broke all of the apps up through CS5, and only CS5.5 and a few CS5 apps which weren't upgraded to CS5.5 along with CS6 applications.
Yeah, Adobe used to design their apps to be backward compatible with Apple OS-X until Apple introduced OS-X 10.8 which broke some old CS package apps and more so with OS-X 10.9. Who do you blame if you have and want to continue those old apps, Adobe for not doing what they used to do or Apple for initially making changes forcing Adobe to decide?
And that's likely one reason why Adobe switched to the subcription, to be able to upgrade apps for users as Apple updated and upgraded OS-X, but Adobe doesn't seem to be doing even that while getting our money every month.
Makes you wonder if it's worth it, at least until OS-X 10.10 breaks all CS apps forcing you to Adobe CC apps and the subscription. After all isn't it really about money than products?
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Definition
Apparently the pundits on Fox News have defined a patriot, such as Cliven Bundy, as someone who grazes cattle on federal land without a lease and in violation of two court orders, refuses to pay grazing fees for 20+ years owing $1 million, and has vowed to refuse to pay income taxes.
They argue a patriot can be a taker of the government resources and money, the same as anyone on federal social and health benefits while defining who is or isn't a patriot by distinguishing between the legality and type of government benefits they receive.
Obviously taking government benefits illegally is a patriot but working and earning legal benefits is a taker. Illegally taking and profitting from grazing privileges on federal land is a patriot. Taking legally earned benefits for food stamps, housing subsidies, Medicaid, childcare benefits, education benefits, etc. is a taker.
And now they have added to the definition that the person can be a devout racist against black people, suggesting they would be better as slaves. They issued statements criticizing his racism but they haven't distanced him as a patriot even after the racist comments.
To them he's still a patriot because he's white and fighting the federal government. Everything else is something to overlook, even violating federal laws and court orders, and being a devout racist. That's Fox News.
And you can bet when the BLM does finally remove Bundy's cattle from the federal lands which have been set aside for the Desert Tortiose, file liens against the sale of any cattle for his overdue grazing fees, and file liens against his property for back taxes, Fox News will still call him a patriot.
They argue a patriot can be a taker of the government resources and money, the same as anyone on federal social and health benefits while defining who is or isn't a patriot by distinguishing between the legality and type of government benefits they receive.
Obviously taking government benefits illegally is a patriot but working and earning legal benefits is a taker. Illegally taking and profitting from grazing privileges on federal land is a patriot. Taking legally earned benefits for food stamps, housing subsidies, Medicaid, childcare benefits, education benefits, etc. is a taker.
And now they have added to the definition that the person can be a devout racist against black people, suggesting they would be better as slaves. They issued statements criticizing his racism but they haven't distanced him as a patriot even after the racist comments.
To them he's still a patriot because he's white and fighting the federal government. Everything else is something to overlook, even violating federal laws and court orders, and being a devout racist. That's Fox News.
And you can bet when the BLM does finally remove Bundy's cattle from the federal lands which have been set aside for the Desert Tortiose, file liens against the sale of any cattle for his overdue grazing fees, and file liens against his property for back taxes, Fox News will still call him a patriot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
