The Earth, The Sky and Everything In Between

http://news.yahoo.com/arizona-senators-handling-her-gun-draws-fire-013945866.html

I really can't stand crap like this. What was she thinking? There are so many problems with her actions.

Also, who makes a gun without a safety switch? Seriously? Let's put it another way: What should we think is the intent of a gun with no safety switch, and what should we think of a gun purchaser who explicitly seeks out a gun with no safety switch? I'm not saying she is explicitly among the latter, but I'm saying that, at best, she made a poor purchase.

When sensational stupidity like this occurs, it's easy to take that circumstance as a referendum on the broader principle. It's easy, that is, to react by saying 'people shouldn't carry guns', and one can certainly find a lot of people to agree with on this point. But, the necessary question behind the question is: why should guns be or not be abolished? When we reach past the point of 'do or do-not', to the 'why do, or why do-not', we will find a multitude of reasonings. Appealing to the do-not, one might fear guns, another might desire universal pacifism, and another might desire a totalitarian central government. Likewise, in the 'do' camp, one might desire anarchy, another might desire to shoot his neighbor, and another might simply desire the ability to defend himself as he sees best. If we only address the question of 'do or do-not', we do not address the multitude of contradictory ideals that are advanced in each decision.

In other words, it's easy to lock arms to achieve an action. But, in order for that action to be meaningful, we must understand and agree why to take an action. The latter is always more difficult, because it requires people to think and communicate independent of their self-interests. That doesn't always come easy.

Here is a fantastic way to view the recent flooding of the Mississippi River and its tributaries...

http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/nasa-satellite-miss-river-flooding_2011-05-11?page=3

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110427/ts_yblog_theticket/white-house-releases-obama-birth-certificate

I have not actively followed the Obama Citizenship question. I saw references to a Certificate of Live Birth, and it looks legit as far as I can tell.

What I read the other day that perplexes me is this: The new governor of Hawaii says a physical Birth Certificate (apparently better than a Certificate of Live Birth, including things like doctors signatures, etc) is on file with the state, but that he cannot release it without President Obama's consent.

If I'm understanding this question correctly, then I cannot understand why Obama has not given consent to release this record. Obama's references to the issue are usually anecdotal and accompanied with a laugh. I would love to join him in that expression, and I'm inclined to say this whole argument is ridiculous. How could the political process ever allow anyone to run for President that could not absolutely, clear or doubt, be verified as a natural-born citizen?

What irks me is that a supposed record that would squash all doubt exists with the state of Hawaii, and Obama will not consent to have the record released? The idea that Obama wasn't born in the U.S. is a hard sell, and I'm not inclined to believe it. But, that Obama won't consent to release of the actual birth certificate gives those questions power. That he won't release it tells me that either he just likes the attention or playing games with doubters, mostly republicans -- or, that he actually has something to hide.

I want to believe this is the dumbest argument ever. Why won't he let Hawaii release the document?

Am I understanding this correct? This just doesn't seem like something to throw jokes and anecdotes at if Hawaii needs only his word to put this question to rest.

I feel like I'm a broken record, but I am revolving in the wierd logic of this issue, trying to figure out how he isn't either obstinate, immature, or lying. But if he isn't doing all he can (and apparently he isn't) to end the question, then either of those seem fair game.

Assuming, of course, that I'm understanding the question correctly.

Hey friends and readers,

Turns out the post this weekend was the big 100, making this 101. Insert dalmatian comment here.

Thanks for hanging in there, since it only took me 6 years to get here. I promise #200 will come a lot quicker.

Because I respect your eye-time, I won't cheap-up this blog and leave it at that. Let's pick a mini-topic for today: Facebook.

I saw the movie a few weeks back. Wonderful score, entertaining movie. Completely misrepresents a lot of people, from what I hear. Even so, it was entertaining, and again, wonderful score -- tastefully understated.

I had a little realization the other morning - I'm not giving it 'epiphany' status, but certainly a lightbulb moment. In terms of revenue streams, Facebook Google and Yahoo are really in uncharted waters. Never before have companies become so big on the backs of advertising revenue. My gut tells me this strategy isn't sustainable, and we will all look back and laugh that people ever thought companies could scale the way these three have on the backs of what seem so fickle and inauthentic forms of revenue. We can hardly argue that they are producing anything that wasn't already available, and therein lay my 'ah hah' moment.

I always assumed Google, Facebook, and Yahoo started something new. The truth is, they didn't start anything at all. We assume that an effect of the internet is that the proverbial 'middle man' is removed from our transactions - that anyone, anywhere, can buy from anyone, anywhere. That is true, but you also need to know where to look. That need hasn't changed. Google, Facebook, and Yahoo have no so much invented anything or blazed any trail. Rather, they have merely consolidated a litany of middle men into a towering three.

So what are these companies, uber-capitalists, heroes of American industry, or highly profitable information leeches? I'm playing ESPNU College Town and Carmen Sandiego on facebook. I have no idea what that means as far as the distribution of my information, but I probably wouldn't like it if I found out. Maybe I should shut it down. Ditto for gmail. No doubt every word I write, including this one, and this one, is somehow contributing to Google's bottom line. Am I being sensational? Might I be correct? Would Google create gmail without a plan to make a lot of money off of it? They have a lot to pay for - they feed all their employees very fancy, expensive food, free of charge.

Anyway, I won't ramble on. I'm just saying, as fun as these guys are, especially if you've been a stockholder for awhile, the question still remains: at this fundamental level, do these companies make sense? In a practical, nuts and bolts manner, does Google's capitalization of 190 billion dollars make sense? Would anyone be surprised if something, whatever it is, caused their value to collapse under its own weight?