Thursday, February 11, 2010
Avatar brings new nightmare: Star Wars in 3-D
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Do the UPC codes really indicate the Country of Origin for the product?
Original publication of State of the Nation at The Desk of Brian, www.DeskofBrian.com:
http://sites.google.com/site/thedeskofbrian/state-of-the-nation/doesaproductsupcbarcodeindicatethecountrytheitemwasmade
http://sites.google.com/site/thedeskofbrian/state-of-the-nation/doesaproductsupcbarcodeindicatethecountrytheitemwasmade
A recent chain email communicated that the "Made in China" indication is falling to the wayside, but consumers can look to the bar code to identify the country or origin.
One example of this email:
If you want to avoid buying China imported food... you will need to know how to read the bar code on the products to see where they are actually coming from...
If the bar code starts from : 690 or 691 or 692 they are from China
If the bar code starts from : 471 they are from Taiwan
If the bar code starts from : 45 or 49 they are from Japan
If the bar code starts from : 489 they are from Hong Kong
There is some truth to the label identification process, but as Snopes.com illustrates (here) it can be erroneous.
"For example a company may have its headquarters in South Africa. The EAN organization in South Africa has the code "600", but all the products of the company may be manufactured in England. The English-made products would still have the "600" prefix code."
Another example at Snopes illustrates how fruit from Guatemala is packed and shipped through Mexico and therefore, likely would have the code for Mexico NOT Guatemala.
So there's some truth to the label's prefix, but it reflects the companies registration rather than a 100% reflection of the product's origin.
Here's what we know for sure:
- "Made in XYZ" is still the best way to determine origins of products.
- If there's no "COO" code (Country of Origin) then it's not required and almost assured to be from the United States.
There a contention that is fighting to close this loophole, especially with all of the processing of foods.
For a complete list of codes and details on understanding them:
President Obama's disgraceful speech at the National Prayer Breakfast
Please check out the original "State of the Nation" publication at DeskofBrian.com
http://sites.google.com/site/thedeskofbrian/state-of-the-nation/obamasprayerbreakfastdisgrace
There President astounded with his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast.
"There is, of course, a need for prayer even in times of joy and peace
and prosperity. Perhaps especially in such times prayer is needed -- to
guard against pride and to guard against complacency."
Are you kidding?
This is the President who has stepped foot in a church only three times since taking office(that's ABC's count not mine), didn't exhibit any religious observation for Christmas and practices his faith daily through his Blackberry.
Yes his Blackberry.
ABC quotes the President: "My Faith and Neighborhood Initiatives director, Joshua DuBois, he has
a devotional that he sends to me on my BlackBerry every day. That's how I start my morning. You know, he's got a passage,
Scripture, in some cases quotes from other faiths to reflect on."
President Obama dares lecture us, treating us like American plebes, to be mindful of prayer and warns against pride as he practices his "eReligion" through daily devotions from his "iPastor" - is he kidding?
We get the whole story
(full article here) of his families devout Christian faith yet we are constantly reminded NOT all Americans believe in God, but you'd think he'd focus on those of us that do pray AT THE PRAYER BREAKFAST!!!
While appealing for cooperation he humbly become the subject of a joke before jabbing at birthers and those who question if he's a Muslim.
"Now, I am the first to confess I am not always right. Michelle will
testify to that. But surely you can question my policies without
questioning my faith, or, for that matter, my citizenship."
Mr, President, you "preach" civility, then don't bring this up. Don't ridicule or even acknowledge these distractors, because then you're causing the division.
"Empowered by faith, consistently, prayerfully, we need to find our way
back to civility. That begins with stepping out of our comfort zones in
an effort to bridge divisions."
Our comfort zones? Find our civility?
The President that attacks dissent and marginalizes opposing opinions as obstruction dares to lecture the masses at a Prayer Breakfast.
Meanwhile, across the street from the White House sits St. John's Episcopal, where "every president since James Madison has attended a service at St. Johns, where pew 54 is designated as "The President's Pew."
(ABC reminds us)
The President can practice his faith how he likes. He can always be criticized for lecturing others to be "faithful" and "pray" when he doesn't openly exhibit these practices (allegedly outside of Camp David, also from ABC)
"And I'm profoundly mindful that a loyal opposition, a vigorous back and
forth, a skepticism of power, all of that is what makes our democracy
work."
I can only hope so Mr. President.
"Through faith, but not through faith alone, we can unite people to serve the common good."
Mr. President, I agree "not through faith alone", but through the Lord. Through the Lord that we pray to faithfully, that I hope you are indeed reading about on your Blackberry, through the Lord we can be united.
Prayer Breakfast Speech Transcript here.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/02/04/se-cupp-obama-prayer-breakfast-faith-god-jesus/
Pic: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/05/obama-attends-prayer-brea_n_164190.html
http://sites.google.com/site/thedeskofbrian/state-of-the-nation/obamasprayerbreakfastdisgrace
There President astounded with his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast.
"There is, of course, a need for prayer even in times of joy and peace
and prosperity. Perhaps especially in such times prayer is needed -- to
guard against pride and to guard against complacency."
Are you kidding?
This is the President who has stepped foot in a church only three times since taking office(that's ABC's count not mine), didn't exhibit any religious observation for Christmas and practices his faith daily through his Blackberry.
Yes his Blackberry.
ABC quotes the President: "My Faith and Neighborhood Initiatives director, Joshua DuBois, he has
a devotional that he sends to me on my BlackBerry every day. That's how I start my morning. You know, he's got a passage,
Scripture, in some cases quotes from other faiths to reflect on."
President Obama dares lecture us, treating us like American plebes, to be mindful of prayer and warns against pride as he practices his "eReligion" through daily devotions from his "iPastor" - is he kidding?
We get the whole story
(full article here) of his families devout Christian faith yet we are constantly reminded NOT all Americans believe in God, but you'd think he'd focus on those of us that do pray AT THE PRAYER BREAKFAST!!!
While appealing for cooperation he humbly become the subject of a joke before jabbing at birthers and those who question if he's a Muslim.
"Now, I am the first to confess I am not always right. Michelle will
testify to that. But surely you can question my policies without
questioning my faith, or, for that matter, my citizenship."
Mr, President, you "preach" civility, then don't bring this up. Don't ridicule or even acknowledge these distractors, because then you're causing the division.
"Empowered by faith, consistently, prayerfully, we need to find our way
back to civility. That begins with stepping out of our comfort zones in
an effort to bridge divisions."
Our comfort zones? Find our civility?
The President that attacks dissent and marginalizes opposing opinions as obstruction dares to lecture the masses at a Prayer Breakfast.
Meanwhile, across the street from the White House sits St. John's Episcopal, where "every president since James Madison has attended a service at St. Johns, where pew 54 is designated as "The President's Pew."
(ABC reminds us)
The President can practice his faith how he likes. He can always be criticized for lecturing others to be "faithful" and "pray" when he doesn't openly exhibit these practices (allegedly outside of Camp David, also from ABC)
"And I'm profoundly mindful that a loyal opposition, a vigorous back and
forth, a skepticism of power, all of that is what makes our democracy
work."
I can only hope so Mr. President.
"Through faith, but not through faith alone, we can unite people to serve the common good."
Mr. President, I agree "not through faith alone", but through the Lord. Through the Lord that we pray to faithfully, that I hope you are indeed reading about on your Blackberry, through the Lord we can be united.
Prayer Breakfast Speech Transcript here.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/02/04/se-cupp-obama-prayer-breakfast-faith-god-jesus/
Pic: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/05/obama-attends-prayer-brea_n_164190.html
Saturday, February 6, 2010
iCarly battles rage on...petitions to Build-a-Bear?
State of the Nation originally posted at DeskofBrian.com
http://deskofbrian.com/2010/01/icarly-battles-rage-on-petitions-to-build-a-bear/
As I review feedback and re-evaluate my iCarly post from Blogger (see below), the battle over iCarly appears to be over the target audience.
One poster, like many supporters, suggest that the teen audience 10-14 is NICK's focus and can handle the humor and crude insults.
Unfortunately, I suggest this isn't the case.
Build-a-Bear is a popular chain of stores geared toward small children not teens and they are promoting the new iCarly bear. The bear isn't particularly special, but the weekend long promotion, endless posters and ads all reveal that NICK's focus is a broader market.
There are no petitions to end the show or ban show. Now, I'm not advocately that at all.
Again, let me say, I don't want the show banned, but I refuse to let my kids watch the show and I don't feel it's appropriate for younger viewers at all.
Maybe I'll get some iCarly supporters to help me beyond the whole "It's just a TV show" defense.
No accountability: There's no real supervision as the older brother acts as a guardian for Carly, but anytime she sneaks out, breaks a rule or disrespects elders - it goes unpunished by the brother and by the principal of the school.
Endless insults: iCarly will provide your child with a laundry list of insults to replace the profane language that you may have banned. Some comments are insensitive (and arguably racist)as in the Japanese episode when Carly tells Spencer (the older brother) to talk to his Japanese lamp like an angry old Japanese man.
Utopian role model: Similar to the Harry Potter syndrome, the main character can do no wrong. No matter what rule has to be broken, authority denied, the end game for the main character is all that matters.
I was shocked to see so must interest my column on banning iCarly from my household. I was even more surprised so many outraged parents frustrated at the show.
On another note, the "hobknocker" controversary rages on as the show and David Archeleta continue to attempt to redefine the word. Universally the urban slang was used to describe someone who punches a man/boy in his privates.
After use on iCarly, the word is now "supposed" to be a derivative of hobgoblin or troll -- good luck with that.
Declaring a word "clean" despite it's previous association doesn't eliminate its history. Archeleta is even cashing in on the incident by selling "What's a Hob Knocker?" t-shirts. Just what you want your child wearing isn't it?
Well, that's the influence iCarly has on some kids.
Petitions to end show: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/icarly-world-of-sickness , http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/icarly-is-a-menace , http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/CancelCarlyRightAway
http://deskofbrian.com/2010/01/icarly-battles-rage-on-petitions-to-build-a-bear/
As I review feedback and re-evaluate my iCarly post from Blogger (see below), the battle over iCarly appears to be over the target audience.
One poster, like many supporters, suggest that the teen audience 10-14 is NICK's focus and can handle the humor and crude insults.
Unfortunately, I suggest this isn't the case.
Build-a-Bear is a popular chain of stores geared toward small children not teens and they are promoting the new iCarly bear. The bear isn't particularly special, but the weekend long promotion, endless posters and ads all reveal that NICK's focus is a broader market.
There are no petitions to end the show or ban show. Now, I'm not advocately that at all.
Again, let me say, I don't want the show banned, but I refuse to let my kids watch the show and I don't feel it's appropriate for younger viewers at all.
Maybe I'll get some iCarly supporters to help me beyond the whole "It's just a TV show" defense.
No accountability: There's no real supervision as the older brother acts as a guardian for Carly, but anytime she sneaks out, breaks a rule or disrespects elders - it goes unpunished by the brother and by the principal of the school.
Endless insults: iCarly will provide your child with a laundry list of insults to replace the profane language that you may have banned. Some comments are insensitive (and arguably racist)as in the Japanese episode when Carly tells Spencer (the older brother) to talk to his Japanese lamp like an angry old Japanese man.
Utopian role model: Similar to the Harry Potter syndrome, the main character can do no wrong. No matter what rule has to be broken, authority denied, the end game for the main character is all that matters.
I was shocked to see so must interest my column on banning iCarly from my household. I was even more surprised so many outraged parents frustrated at the show.
On another note, the "hobknocker" controversary rages on as the show and David Archeleta continue to attempt to redefine the word. Universally the urban slang was used to describe someone who punches a man/boy in his privates.
After use on iCarly, the word is now "supposed" to be a derivative of hobgoblin or troll -- good luck with that.
Declaring a word "clean" despite it's previous association doesn't eliminate its history. Archeleta is even cashing in on the incident by selling "What's a Hob Knocker?" t-shirts. Just what you want your child wearing isn't it?
Well, that's the influence iCarly has on some kids.
Petitions to end show: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/icarly-world-of-sickness , http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/icarly-is-a-menace , http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/CancelCarlyRightAway
Geithner lies to America over Bank fees
Follow "State Of the Nation" original posts at Desk of Brian:
http://sites.google.com/site/thedeskofbrian/state-of-the-nation/geithnermisleadsamericaonbankfeesplantorecoupaigloss
Taxpayers from top to bottom will get a proverbial rear-ending as the government attempts to recoup losses from their bad decisions.
http://sites.google.com/site/thedeskofbrian/state-of-the-nation/geithnermisleadsamericaonbankfeesplantorecoupaigloss
Taxpayers from top to bottom will get a proverbial rear-ending as the government attempts to recoup losses from their bad decisions.
Attempting to save AIG is the latest debacle revisited in Washington
Reuters reports how the White House will spin penalizing large banking and finance firms as Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner speaks out:
"Those contracts were outrageous. They should never have been permitted," Geithner said in testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee.
Geithner and the administration fail to acknowledge that these "outrageous contracts" were approved when the "bailout funds" were agreed upon. In fact, most of the executives at AIG were hired to work for a dollar with a bonus plan attached.
"Now, if you join with us in passing this proposed fee on our largest financial institutions, then you'll be able to say, as we do, that the American taxpayer will not pay a penny for what happened at AIG," Geithner said
Most egregious is how the taxpayers will be covering their horrible decisions. These "bank fees" and penalties will be passed on to the consumer. Building up their slush fund by highjacking money from these firms will start the whole cycle over again.
Again, we are treated like morons.
Americans need to grapple with the hard realization that recovering from this financial disaster is a long, painful process and government intervention is not the solution and in fact, deepens the pain for all of us.
Charlie Crist proves he's no Conservative
Follow the original posts are our new website:
http://sites.google.com/site/thedeskofbrian/state-of-the-nation/cristshowstruescolorsforobamamoney
Charlie Crist proves once again that he'll compromise principles for federal funds. Fervor over the $1.25 billion in federal stimulus money has Democrats and train supporters beaming with glee. Ignoring the voice of the people without hesitation as voters have been against the project for years and there's little concern where the rest of the money will come from.
http://sites.google.com/site/thedeskofbrian/state-of-the-nation/cristshowstruescolorsforobamamoney
Charlie Crist proves once again that he'll compromise principles for federal funds. Fervor over the $1.25 billion in federal stimulus money has Democrats and train supporters beaming with glee. Ignoring the voice of the people without hesitation as voters have been against the project for years and there's little concern where the rest of the money will come from.
"We'll have to do some reassessment," said Nazih Haddad, manager for passenger rail development for the Florida Department of Transportation.
Ed Turanchik, a Tampa developer who headed a statewide grass roots campaign for the project, said the $1.25 billion announced today is enough for the first two years. A second infusion will be needed to lay track, install signals, build stations and buy trains for the Tampa-Orlando connection, he said.
"This is testament to people in politics working in the right way," said Republican U.S. Sen. George LeMieux. "Democrats and Republicans, local, state, and federal folks pulled together to get these needed dollars for Florida."
Crist's opponent for the 2010 Senate election Marco Rubio disagrees: "I think we should all be concerned about increased spending on anything at a time when the federal government is borrowing money to function."
Maybe Florida's leaders should STOP behaving like drug addicts ecstatic to get a fix from the federal stimulus drug dealer. Maybe we should be concerned that light rails have been a complete and utter failures all over the country.
Environmentally
So few people actually ride the rails that single car riders leave less of a carbon footprint. The calculations for trains assume maximum capacity (400 per car for the Florida rail) yet in Seattle, a similar sized rail, only average 12 riders per car.
The proposed rail from Chicago to St. Louis will actually run on diesel fuel and the Bellevue rail may be routed through the beautiful wetlands -- neither are particularly green environmentally friendly projects.
Nobody rides them!
Supporters paint a utopian vision of highways free of congestion luring more people to love proposed commuting by train -- well, for other people. Unfortunately, the train costs are so high that DOTs cut other means of mass transit (buses are a common target) and here in Florida, the West Palm to Miami ride, only covers 13% of its operational expenses.
The most damning visual is the famous train riding coyote who boarded a train without fear of interacting with a human.
Randall O'Toole of the Cato Institute has been a vocal adversary to high-speed trains points out that California predicts its 220-mph trains would take 3.5% of cars off of roads while the DOT predicts California highway traffic grows that much every two years.
Similar to the Vegas monorail, which doesn't take you anywhere near the strip, the Florida rail doesn't stop at Lakeland or go into Downtown Orlando.
There's a mixed review of the impact on the environment, the expense project never recoups the cost as few people utilize the train service at the demise of other public services.
So why are politicians so excited about these projects?
The number one rule applies: follow the cash.
Billions for local engineers and contractors which can be levied for political support and votes. $1.25 billion of "free" federal tax money is nothing more than a laundering of funds to predetermined businesses for political equity.
When the well runs dry, the taxpayers will be stuck with the tab. As cited above, the Obama down payment serves only the groundbreaking before we'll be asked to pony up billions and billions, probably through taxation, just to put in the tracks.
To Charlie Crist: if you are part of the problem NOW, why would we put you into the Senate to do more damage to our country and the debt?
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article1068768.ece
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/28/HOTB149A68.DTL
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10233
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010939892_mercerslough31m.html
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
President vs. Supreme Court & Constitution?
Originally posted on The Desk of Brian, www.DeskofBrian.com at
http://sites.google.com/site/thedeskofbrian/state-of-the-nation/presidentvssupremecourtconstitution
http://sites.google.com/site/thedeskofbrian/state-of-the-nation/presidentvssupremecourtconstitution
"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections."1
Justice Alito mouthing "Not True" met criticisms from Democrats.
"I can't ever recall a president taking a swipe at the Supreme Court like that," said Lucas A. Powe Jr., a Supreme Court expert at the University of Texas law school.2
What should concern us is the flippant comment about circumventing the Constitution:
"This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Now, yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I'll issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans."1
It's not a question of if, it's already put together as Bloomberg reports. If an executive order gets the President what he wants, then an executive order it shall be.
The language of the two branches are poignantly opposed to one another.
President Obama: "With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans... We are going to talk with bipartisan congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision."
"The text and purpose of the First Amendment point in the same direction: Congress may not prohibit political speech, even if the speaker is a corporation or union." - Chief Justice John Roberts
This dispute carries across party lines, blurring the intent of Free Speech under the guise of corruption and evil big business. Likewise, the dissenters pretend that the current landscape shields corporations from funding political parties, candidates or ads, but in fact, these entities muddle the process by creating faux foundations to funnel funds to endorse their political preference.
The Supreme Court's decision upheld some of our most basic principles, principles about the freedom to engage in political speech that are incorporated into the Constitution, a document that the critics of this decision seem all to willing to ignore when its requirements don’t fit their political objectives.
Of course, as with Nancy Pelosi, the President seems to think we are "kidding" when we demand our politicians abide by the limits of the Constitution. (see below for Pelosi exchange)
Frankly Mr. President, I'm NOT kidding.
1. Read the entire SOU transcript: Barack Obama - 2010 State of Union address
Source of image: http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/why-obamas-supreme-court-selection-will-be-a-disgrace-to-the-constitution/
Pelosi exhange on health care
CNSNews.com: "Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?"
Pelosi: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"
CNSNews.com: "Yes, yes I am."
Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter.
http://www.jeremiahfilms.com/released/Congress/910231230
CNSNews.com: "Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?"
Pelosi: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"
CNSNews.com: "Yes, yes I am."
Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter.
http://www.jeremiahfilms.com/released/Congress/910231230
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)