Wife Beater Brand Woman's Shirt

I'll be the first to admit I find sick things funny. I listen to metal music, which is wrapped with sick imagery, usually for the sake of shock value. I get it.

However, Wife Beater brand clothes cross my own arbitrary line of what I can take. Maybe because I'm a victim of childhood abuse myself. But take a look at the picture of the women's shirt to the right. There is something deeply unsettling about women wearing a bloody hand symbol, representing domestic violence. To me that's like Jews wearing swastikas or blacks wearing the KKK symbol. There are some things I can't even laugh at.

Read more from: Geek Meets Girl.

H/T: @chris_oh

Related articles by Zemanta

• Mel Gibson: Crazy, vicious creep (beliefnet.com)
• Wife beaters could face random police visit to discourage reoffending, Theresa May says (telegraph.co.uk)
• Seattle Seahawks' Leroy Hill Should Not Be Released Or Traded (bleacherreport.com)
• Marriage and Abusive Relationships (socyberty.com)
• Mel Gibson: Classic Batterer? (thedailybeast.com)

The UK Government wants to introduce a law to allow anyone to use your photographs commercially, or in ways you might not like, without asking you first.

In reading more about the UK Digital Economy Bill, I realize something bigger than any individual has been put into motion: the world-wide culture of content harvesting.

Without exaggeration, Google's business model dictates it must own all the world's content. Right now everybody is okay with that because we all use Google's Web, image, news, blog, map, book, and scholar search services. Every day we are telling Google they are doing what we want.

So why should it surprise anyone when companies use the Internet in the same way individuals do (see image above)? Companies are made of people. Governments are run by people. When it became a cultural norm to pirate books, movies, music, and photographs, why wouldn't company employees do what they do at home?

Enter Clause 43 of the UK Digital Economy Bill. The language legitimizes unauthorized use of intellectual property by lumping all work on the Internet into a "collective". The philosophy seems to be this: creators who put any content on the Internet divorce themselves of control of that content. Side note: I'm seeing more questioning of the hive mentality (recommended reading You are Not a Gaget by Jaron Lanier).

My internal question machine kicks into gear:

• Does accidental publishing of content put it into the collective to be used?
• Can content be retracted?
• Is there any direct recourse for individuals who retract published work?
• Can a web-based service's failure to hide private content provide any recourse for individuals whose works became part of the collective?
• Will I see my daughter's face on a can of soup one day?
• What are the international ramifications? Specifically, does that mean if I know a photographer in the UK, for example, can I use his work without telling him?
• Can people in the UK use my stuff without my permission?
• Who decides what is and isn't in the collective?
• Most importantly: what does this mean for people who make a living as artists and writers? Will the "licensing body" feed their children and pay their rent?

I could come up with questions along those lines all day. Many content creators could.

I agree with the opponents of this legislation. But this is a basic problem with society in general. When things are left up to a government to decide, they will screw it up. Just because technology poses hard questions to answer, we shouldn't leave it up to government bodies to decide. Culturally the world is saying they want everything for free. A large part of the solution is to work on public campaigns, education, and real solutions as to how to handle intellectual property.  The war between people and companies will get nastier, especially when governments feel compelled to get involved and have such a history of siding where the money is.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Google to digitize old books from Rome, Florence (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Google's China ad partners wait in 'incomparable pain' (macworld.com)
• Stat Shot: Google's Growing Infrastructure Advantage (gigaom.com)
• British Authors And Publishers Opt Out Of Google Books By The Thousands (huffingtonpost.com)
• Amazon And Others Slam Revised Google Books Deal (huffingtonpost.com)
• Thousands of authors opt out of Google book settlement (guardian.co.uk)
• UK Internet Filtering Bill Watered Down (yro.slashdot.org)
• Digital economy bill rushing through parliament (iwr.co.uk)
• Photographers rue Mandy's copyright landgrab (go.theregister.com)
• British Telecom and Google oppose clauses in UK's Digital Economy Bill (newstatesman.com)
• 3 Count: Sweeping Reform (plagiarismtoday.com)

The New York Giants and New York Jets are considering awarding naming rights for their new stadium to a German company that once had ties to the Nazis.

Officials from German-based Allianz — one of the world’s largest insurance firms — said that they’ve atoned for past history and should not be judged by the company’s World War II record.

Allianz once insured Nazi death camps and refused to pay life insurance claims to its Jewish clients — instead granting the proceeds to the Nazis.

. . . . . .

The Anti-Defamation League issued a statement calling the proposed naming rights deal “inappropriate” and “an insult to the memory of Holocaust victims.”

“The New York region is home to many Holocaust survivors and their families and to World War II veterans for whom memories of the war are still vivid,” the statement reads. “We hope that the teams’ ownership will take this into account as they move toward a decision on naming rights.”

Is this worse than companies like Ford or IBM sponsoring players or teams? Do the people from the Anti-Defamation League feel the same about BMW and Volkswagen dealerships in their neighborhoods?

Do Saudi-based companies lose business because of terrorism? Has Wal-Mart, Google, or Microsoft suffered in any way because of their sweet deals with China's oppressive government?

In the big scheme of things, the opposition to Allianz sponsoring a stadium seems arbitrary considering how so many companies get by without criticism of past and present atrocities in other countries. The comic book villain ethics of most global companies dictate that everything is justified if it's just business.

I ask why Allianz because they are still in business, earning money from paying customers in spite of their admissions. The Volkswagen Beetle's cute-and-cuddly image hasn't diminished since the world found out about its Nazi origins. For all of the horrific actions taken by the Chinese government to create perfect Olympics, Wal-Mart hasn't lost profits (or sleep) over their business dealings with that regime.

Objections to businesses over foreign actions that harm people should be one way or another. Right now, the majority of Americans don't care and the message the Anti-Defamation League wants to communicate about Allianz is lost because Allianz has $20 to $30 million a year to spend.

As stabbing victim LaShanda Calloway lay dying on the floor of a convenience store, five shoppers, including one who stopped to take a picture of her with a cell phone, stepped over the woman, police said.

The June 23 situation, captured on the store's surveillance video, got scant news coverage until a columnist for The Wichita Eagle disclosed the existence of the video and its contents Tuesday.

Police have refused to release the video, saying it is part of their investigation.

"It was tragic to watch," police spokesman Gordon Bassham said Tuesday. "The fact that people were more interested in taking a picture with a cell phone and shopping for snacks rather than helping this innocent young woman is, frankly, revolting."

Yes, it is revolting.

The complete disconnect of Washington from anything resembling reality is an old observation, but I don't think it's ever been this extreme or devastating. As a nation supposedly governed by laws, you would think our legislative branch would uphold the rule of law. Instead, elected legislators don't serve their constituents and they don't serve the Constitution and they certainly don't serve any useful purpose. They serve their own presentation on TV, blogs, and other media outlets. They want to make laws, but only laws that push the party line. For instance, they use troop funding as a carrot to cram a surrender down the American people's throats. They also spend so much time preening for the press and criticizing each other, I don't know when they actually get work done.

I'm sickened by the continual attacks on the President by elected Democrats. It's not because I'm a major Bush fan. His shortcomings are many, but the Democrats have become bully children with a transparent agenda of crying foul to every comment, action, and move from the White House. In theory, partisan bickering and name-calling would be relegated to election season. That idea is long gone since they are now on stage campaigning from day one. Acquiring power, catering to the most vocal activists (even if the most vocal is the most wacko), and destroying the ideology of the other side seems to trump any decency left in these people. Their egos are like insatiable farm hogs getting fat on media attention and paying little attention to anything real.

The media plays right along. The Valarie Plame case, if anything, showed the cozy relationship between political figures and the media. As a result, with every breaking story, the timing is suspect and the sources are questionable. Who has agendas? What type of Washington insider leaked what information and how did they get it? The New York Times and CNN love to have major stories with leaked classified information, regardless of the consequences. When the story broke about how the government was using banks to track terrorist financing, I thought of the "reporters" as soulless and gutless. They would never have run a story against our Islamic enemies with as much detail–our government doesn't behead those insult it.

We are at War and even our own government doesn't act like it. For that matter the British are embarassingly spineless when their best and brightest are kidnapped by Iran, in an obvious attempt to show just how weak the West really is.

There is a story about Reagan after Leon Klinghoffer was murdered by Palestinian terrorists. He met some resistance at going after the terrorists and he said, "Good God! They've murdered an American here. Let's get on with it."

I think that is what I'm missing here. Let's face it, Bush, while being one of the few world leaders to stand up and address Islamic terrorism, has been fighting a politically correct war. Tony Blair has just shown that his eloquence cannot be matched by action. Iraq is a mess because we didn't destroy the enemy. We have given the terrorists too many opportunities to move around and kill civilians and almost completely eradicate the Christians living there.

We are not leading the UN in addressing Iran. We are allowing them to build nuclear weapons; they might as well have our blessing. We now allow them to take military members hostage with no recourse. When are we going to wake up rain hellfire on these Islamic wackos? We won't because our elected officials have zero backbone to stand behind the use of force they authorized for Iraq. In addition, they would rather have show trials over perfectly legal firings of U.S. attorneys than to get together to figure out a good response to Iran.

What's missing is the America I learned about in history. The one the world once respected because, in spite of our faults, we stood up for what's right. We stood up for countries that couldn't defend themselves against aggressors and we fought and died protecting freedom worldwide. It was like after World War II, we just decided to covertly meddle in other governments' affairs and go to war occasionally, but pull out before the job was done.

I don't know if our culture has changed so much that most people don't care about right and wrong. I often wonder why American citizens tolerate the hate and violence of the Middle East, but they go nuts when gas prices approach three dollars a gallon. Americans don't get angry anymore unless it's directed at ourselves. Where was the outrage over the Arabs dancing in the streets when the World Trade Center buildings fell? Where is the outrage over the extremism driving this violence toward us from the so-called Religion of Peace?

Ultimately, I blame this on our leaders. Their leadership consists of what I described above: sound bites, show trials, and continual criticism. Their strongest rhetoric is always against fellow Americans. Their strongest proposals and actions are directed across the isle. Their strongest positions involve being contrary to the Administration. This is not the leadership we need. Our culture must change if we are to survive. The only way to do it, is to find and elect leaders who lead by conviction, not opinion polls.

Okay, I feel a little better now.

La Shawn Barber has the scoop on Hillary and Obama and their shifting Southern accents. Cringe at their fake Southern accents. Be in awe of their condescension. Fear their politics.

Hopefully, the report will elaborate, but my guess is that black students used the “rape” hoopla to vent frustration about feeling shut out of campus life academically. Ironically, it’s the administration’s fault that minorities have to deal with this. They’re admitted to these schools with lower grades and scores than their white counterparts in the name of skin color diversity, and the administration has little regard for whether they’re academically prepared.

The struggle to keep up with rigorous coursework is stressful in itself, but when you’re made to feel like some white liberal’s pet project and you carry the stigma of having been admitted under a separate and a lower-standards admission track, stress is tenfold. Perhaps Brodhead and the committee finally recognize that admitting students based on race despite academic readiness seriously undermines their campus experience and that raising standards will alleviate some of the alienation and stigma minorities may be feeling. We’ll know for sure (I presume) when the report comes out.

So let me get this straight: The faculty and staff are so knee-jerk they condemned the lacrosse players that were accused before their trial, and now they are going to cater to some students feeling "left out"?

A few weeks ago on Fox News Watch, Jim Pinkerton suggested that the victim culture has maybe run its course in reference to the Boston couple who were removed from an AirTran flight because of their unruly child. It's tantalizing to think our culture is becoming desensitized to the cries of victimization over every little thing.

In the same way the Duke rape case accuser and Nifong have harmed the image of real rape victims, others who cry "victim", especially on the coattails of a high-profile media circus, ruin things for everybody else. Not all causes are equal and that's where our victim culture is truly flawed. To elevate the somebody's feelings to the same level of rape is ridiculous. They are not directly comparing them, but it's a bandwagon.

La Shawn has made good comments on the content of their recommendations, but I think it's wholly inappropriate for the school to be working on perceived hurt feelings in light of how the accused lacrosse players have been disparaged by the same people who are now looking to improve the "undergraduate experience". It's hard to feel sorry for other students who haven't been tried and convicted by their own faculty, the media, and parading wacko activists. They are not equal victims.

I'm more inclined to just tell these people to suck it up or air their issues after the smoke clears from the rape case.

An unusual spam war has erupted on the net, pitting an apparently irate spammer against an Israeli antispam firm that claims it's making junk e-mailers think twice about bugging its customers.

Blue Security's controversial method uses reverse spam, if you will, returning massive quantities of opt-out messages to companies it identifies as spammers.

Apparently the companies on the receiving end don't like it one bit.

In an escalation of hostilities this week, Blue Security customers began receiving thousands of messages demanding that members either drop the company's service or continue to receive an avalanche of unwanted e-mails. In addition, U.S. internet users were unable to access Blue Security's website Tuesday. The company said it is still investigating the cause, which may have been a distributed denial of service attack.

"We have devised a method to retrieve your address from their database," one message states. "So by signing up and remaining a Blue Security user not only are you opening yourself up for this, you are also potentially verifying your e-mail address through them to even more spammers."

The very idea that spammers have the gall to contact customers and threaten them to drop Blue Security is nearly beyond understanding until you look at our current culture of terrorism. Terrorists are increasingly getting their way. Terrorism has created the idea that nobody will stand up for themselves anymore. All you have to do is make trouble and anybody will give in to illegal, immoral, and even immature behavior. France has been great at giving in to rioters. Not only did a bunch of Muslims burning cars last way longer than it needed to, but now companies there have to put up with a mess of whiny youths with a warped sense of entitlement. Even here in the U.S., hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants have thrown enough of a hissy to turn the debate into some kind of racial issue rather than an issue of legality. It's so easy to be swept up in their rhetoric that you have to stop yourself and say, "Wait a minute. Shouldn't you be in jail instead of on CNN?"

The rule of law is old and stuffy while terrorism is becoming a chic. The gushing sympathy Hollywood, some pundits, and supposed leaders have for terrorists will be analyzed by future historians in the same manner current historians struggle to explain European appeasement during Hitler's rein. People watch the constant criticism against authority figures who try to enforce the rule of law. You would think every police officer and military member was part of an evil conspiracy to oppress minorities and get rich. The negative discourse about the War on Terror, law enforcement, and those who really don't like terrorists has turned intellectual debate on its head for trendy sound bites and in-your-face arguing (á la cable news debate shows). In addition to the lack of respect for law, there are also attacks on Western culture. The spineless flopping from the U.S. State Department trickled down to the U.S. news organizations, bookstores, and even Comedy Central over showing the image of Mohammed. So now everybody knows that businesses are easily intimidated.

So what's a seedy business to do in this modern world? That brings me back to Blue Security's attempt to give spammers a dose of their own medicine. Blue Security is not really doing anything illegal in the same way that spammers are not. Anti-spam laws are vague and have little in them to actually solve the problem. Spammers are a major annoyance, but they do not kill people. So I'm not implying they are terrorists. But what they are doing in response to a single company's defense strategy is to employ terrorist-type behavior. That behavior is this: "If you don't do as we say, we will make you miserable."

The world needs to pay attention to the people who are paying attention to the terrorists. They are learning what works and learning how to intimidate.

I believe there is a difference between men and women. There are those in our culture who want to erase this difference and I think it's become socially confusing for a lot of people. The male mental processing is so different from women that it's like comparing electrical with plumbing. Sure they both reside in the wall, you need to keep the live electricity away from the water.

That's not to say that women and men cannot work together. In fact, I have worked for more females than males in my own career. Some of my best professional mentors were women–professional being the key word. You see, socially we are different. To diminish the differences between men and women also diminishes the respect each side has for the other. American popular culture is eating away at the respect men used to hold for women.

I've noticed fewer younger men hold doors open for women these days. While it's a seemingly small thing, think about what it symbolizes. Holding the door open for somebody else is a gesture of kindness and respect. You do it for senior citizens, children, and women. Holding the door open for women was never intended to insinuate that the female body was incapable of mimicking the appropriate gestures to open that big, bad heavy door. But that's how feminism portrayed it in the past. The reality is that opening the door for somebody means that you are making yourself subservient to that person (to a degree). If you don't think that's right, then answer this: why do upscale hotels, condos, and apartments have doormen?

I don't want to digress into a thesis on door opening, but I wanted to make a point that it's an example of the declining respect for women. This respect is part of cultural norms that are changing because of how women are generally perceived and then respected by men. I would argue that most women like being respected and treated well by men. Those women who want to crawl into the gutter with the "boys" may have esteem issues that require therapy and antidepressants. I don't think the women of "Sex in the City" represent most American women. In fact, they talk more like men than they do women.

Since the 1800s, rules for courting and then dating have been stamped out. It's no longer formal and there seems little left in the taboo arena. Being the father of daughters, I wish we still had a little more of that left. Not only will I have to fight off the hormonally challenged boys, but I will compete with parents who gave up on enforcing standards on their children long ago.

This all carries over into the adult workplace where twenty-something men think their female coworkers are potential conquests. How the women dress, talk to men, and conduct themselves will determine who seriously they are taken as workers. From my own experience, I always respected the women who dressed and spoke with a high level of professionalism and any personal topics were only discussed after the professional relationship was established; even then, sex was never talked about.

Before you tell me this is not fair and that women should be accepted to do and act as they please, think carefully. Women are the brakes of society. Women create boundaries because men, by nature, do not. To expect men to behave professionally around women who talk about sex is fighting nature itself. Both sides must clearly understand the boundaries and enforce them.

In reality, there were city and public school busses not used, a governor who refused federalization of the situation, and a news media hell-bent on reporting the victimization of the people who stayed as the only side of the story (see Don Singleton: Who is responsible). I'm not pointing this out to jump into the blame game since there are enough people doing that already. What I'd like to do is point out this new culture of virulent hatred and how in today's culture, you only have to convince an audience to get angry with you to change perception.

Take a look at Mayor Nagin of New Orleans. He shows an obvious lack of crisis management skills. Yet, he held press conference after press conference blaming Bush for the disaster. Suddenly the news becomes the mayor's rants and he is the sound bite of the day on nearly every channel. The news is so much more than the mayor. It is the history and culture of the city. It is the long history of the levees. It is the people who are not in front of the camera but instead are driving trucks of supplies into New Orleans. It is the volunteers in other places prepping supplies for people they don't even know. It is the immediate help given by Arkansas and Texas to those who are displaced.

Yet when you see reports, even a week after, you see so many shots of angry, bitter people. No wonder people are so cynical these days. Is extreme bitterness the only way to view the world? I can't prove it, but I think there is a group of people out there who have nothing better to do than spew hatred. They do this while the rest of the world doesn't have time to play petty PR games.

As for the victims in New Orleans, I don't get the sense from the media they are glad to be alive in spite living through one of the most ferocious hurricanes in our history. Should I point out that nearly a quarter of a million people disappeared in a few hours time after the Indian Ocean Tsunami? Right now, we know that the numbers from New Orleans will not even come close. While it's a tragedy that people did die, so many people did not and I haven't seen that as a headline yet. I'd probably die if there was a headline like "Hundreds of Thousands Saved Before New Orleans Hit." In fact, the media seems to be struggling to elevate the body count even when the actual dead bodies aren't even close to their estimates yet.

Regardless of the tragedy, it's clear misery loves company and the company is kept by the media. Every once in a while, I'll see somebody happy to be alive profiled, but the overall presentation of this disaster fits into a new media template: There are people to blame and we will ensure everybody smells blood. I don't know if this comes from a simple bias in the media against the current administration or if it runs deeper.

Facts are dry and boring. To analyze facts requires reading and thought and some ability to process the facts objectively. You can't fit that in 30 seconds before the next break. What you can fit in that 30 second spot is some angry person yelling at the camera for her new trailer from FEMA. This is what is happening. This is why terrorists do what they do. They create a culture of misery and entitlement and then use it to kill. I'm not comparing Katrina victims to terrorists in any way, but I am stating that people respond to this hatred at an emotional level they seem to forget the facts. For instance, I've seen people who recognize the political opportunity presented and are discussing the action they should take. Look at this quote from Daily Kos:

If this builds like I think it might, and if we follow the steps above, it could be a political Perfect Storm. I think (without any first-hand knowledge) that something like this is what has kept the Reids of the world quiet for now. They can't make a big play until they feel that the national political will is ready to be moved in that direction. That preparation work is up to us, and to the mid-level pols.

So, keep up the groundswell, and let's hope that when the mayors and governors and back-seat/middle-seat congressfolk give their statements to the media, that along with the "here's what we're doing" and "here's what you can do" parts, they also have a "Why?" part, definitely an "I'm concerned for what this lack of federal competence means for our community/state/region" part, and maybe even an "I'm angry and I want action" moment as well.

Picture a pyramid. The people at the point can't take action until the base is wide enough and the middle has followed. Keep making the base bigger, and start trying to get the middle to follow — that's our tasks for the next few weeks.

In other words: feed on the anger and get our people elected. Disgusting.

The political hatred on both sides is enough to make me turn off my TV. I can't take the negativity any more. I can't hear one more person who would rather tear down instead of figuring out how to build up. Katrina destroyed New Orleans and a good portion of the Gulf Coast; that's enough destruction for me.

Proving my point almost immediately, Jennifer Loven of the Associated Press gets her digs in this story.

Like estranged in-laws at a holiday gathering, President Bush and Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco kept their distance as both toured a relief center for storm victims Monday. At their next stop, the Republican president kissed the Democratic governor on the cheek, but it wasn't clear whether they had made up.

Thanks, Jennifer. I appreciate you comparing the President of the United States and the governor of a state in crisis to in-laws before anybody can catch a breath. You are proving that you thrive on the conflict and the negativity. You are not reporting; you are stoking the flames controversy. Thanks from all of us who just can't wait until the Katrina Commission grandstanding and sound bites. If you keep this up, you may get assigned to the commission story since you have such a knack for similes.

Before I get to the political discourse of the hurricane, I'll start with the situation on the ground there. Something must be said of New Orleans. I know of no other city in the United States that even comes close to its party atmosphere. With Marti Gras, spring break, and a host of other events, New Orleans has bred a culture of crime. When I was there, I saw people avoid feces, urine, and vomit on the sidewalks as if they were small potholes. Women flashed their breasts to total strangers to get plastic bead necklaces. I saw some people so drunk, walking wasn't even an option so they just sat on the street. All of this behavior is excused because "it's New Orleans and that's what you do." This acceptance of such behavior helps breed crime because the most outrageous behavior is acceptable in New Orleans.

So is it surprising that there are violent criminals running wild, thriving on the anarchy, and taking full advantage of the disaster? Would the same behavior happen in a different city like Houston? I don't know and I hope we don't find out. I'm not seeing reports even remotely like the violence in New Orleans from Biloxi, but that is like comparing apples to oranges. There is no other city even remotely like New Orleans in the U.S. and that's the point.

With that said, I'm still heartbroken that I've heard of rape and murder in the Superdome. I hate hearing about a baby being delivered on a bridge with no medical assistance. People are dying of thirst and it seems as if there is little hope for rescue. I can only speculate the FEMA and Homeland Security are over thinking the situation. I'm not sure if they debating where to put people or what is the best way to get them out. I just know that I've seen the Air Force set up temporary bases within a day so C-130s can bring in supplies in places like Iraq. I know we can do it; all it takes is a simple order. The lack of quick response is disturbing.

Then there is the other side to this response issue. Before the hurricane had even finished its deadly course, left-wing bloggers and columnists and pundits started blaming Bush for global warming and being on vacation. I've read everything from Bush let this happen to punish Kerry voters and to take focus away from Iraq to this is an experiment in martial law as Bush gains more power. The I'm not going to even dignify that level of discourse with a response other than none of that matters right now. Just using the term "global warming" is motivated politically since science can't prove any temperature change on the Earth is caused by humans. Any well-informed pundit knows this and therefore its use has only one purpose: to prove a political point. If there is ever a time to forget politics, it should be now. After the citizens of New Orleans have food and shelter, once there is a long-term plan to take care of them, once reconstruction of the city begins, maybe it will be time to debate who did or didn't do what. I can't believe there are those who would virtually stand on the backs of the miserable to make political points. It's not just the left wing. Just this morning, I heard right-wing discourse about the corrupt government of New Orleans and the history of criminal state governors. Again, there will be time for analyzing things after this is over. But as long as there are people literally dying in New Orleans, it is most inappropriate to talk of such things. Period.

Here in Texas, Dallas and Houston are trying to do the best they can at the Astrodome and Reunion Arena. But there is not enough food here for those people and certainly not enough medical care. Conditions may improve as the word gets out, but the effort is important. Other states could help, but the ultimate strategic responsibility falls on the federal government who runs FEMA. But again, I hear Texans complaining about the money this is going to cost the state. I don't understand why that's even an issue. Would these same people leave somebody injured on the side of the road because they were late for work? Maybe so. I just don't think now is the time to put money before people. Bush promised billions to Africa for AIDS research and was criticized for it not being enough. We gave billions in aid to Indonesia after the tsunami. Where is the same level of effort? Why aren't Hollywood stars calling for help? Why does the United States take care of everybody else in the world before we take care of ourselves? If you can answer those questions, then you have more insight into our culture than most. Most people just want to complain and blame.

History will not be kind to players in this disaster. The state and city governments in Louisiana will be marred for decades of squandering money on everything but infrastructure. The federal government will appear negligent for wasting time figuring out how to figure out what to do. But more than anything else, history will record that the people of New Orleans looted, rioted, murdered, and raped each other as others in the country used the disaster as an opportunity to push political agendas. Disgusting. This is not the America I know and love and it's heartbreaking to witness it happening.

Katrina is not only the worst natural disaster in our history; it's also the worst cultural disaster.

Cable news has done a lot to aid and abet the relentless criticism of everything. For twenty four hours a day, there is only so much non-repetitive programming. In between breaking news, helicopter coverage of California car chases, and U.S. troop body counts in Iraq, they have to fill the gap with something. That something is composed of pundits, commentators, and professional critics that fall under the blanket term, "contributor". Some of these contributors are knowledgeable, well-researched, and fair. Others are has-beens with a history of failure resulting in a bitterness they wear like a service medal. You cannot turn on Fox News or MSNBC or CNN without one of these contributors tearing apart somebody else's life's work or a collective group's vast efforts without any real context.

I'm not claiming you cannot judge somebody else; that's what your brain is for. "Non-judgmental" people kid themselves and think they kid everyone else when they refuse to have an opinion. However, the other extreme is the highly critical person who can't hold perspective and doesn't have a command of the complexities specific to a situation.

The difference between judging and being overly critical is the difference between critical thinking and irrational criticism. Critical thinking keeps actions in perspective while irrational criticism has no allowance for mistakes nor any acknowledgement of indemnity. In the world of irrational criticism, Merck can't recall their own drug and provide compensation without a litany of lawsuits and hordes of politicians proposing legislation. Marines cannot clear a room full terrorists without a camera providing a glimpse into the reality of war so armchair generals can second guess our own soldiers. The U.S. cannot hold elections without reports of people feeling disenfranchised because somebody looked at them the wrong way, therefore invalidating the election results.

Hidden far behind the interference of TV pundits, media bias, and out-of-context sound bites, there is a simple, stark truth: people are not perfect.

It doesn't matter what they do; if people are involved, mistakes will happen. How people respond to mistakes shows us what we are made of. Lately, I think much of humanity has been going in reverse. Instead of learning from mistakes and building on that knowledge to better ourselves, political correctness, litigation, public opinion, and even fear seem to stall progress and test our fortitude.

It's time to learn from the past to build the future. We can't do that if every mistake leads to years of of second guessing. Seas were not crossed by the timid and rockets were not launched into space by tort lawyers. If we are to continually improve our way of life, we need to cut each other some slack. Understanding the differences between legitimate mistakes and intentional malice can set the stage for our greatness.

I'm not scared about the outcome. Our nation will survive either candidate. What our nation won't survive is the litigation, poll-watching, and second guessing that has become this year's election procedure. The 2000 election was the starting point for this craziness. The Gore campaign did not respect the laws of Florida and were challenged all of the way to the Supreme Court. Now the GOP has done the same thing in Ohio by challenging the restrictions on poll watchers. Overall, my fears are being realized as I write this: Moderate Problems at Polling Places.

Election officials in Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota fielded complaints of disruptions by the liberal interest group MoveOn.org (search), while in Ohio, a woman sued on behalf of people who did not receive absentee ballots on time, asking that they be allowed to cast provisional ballots.

In Philadelphia, Republican activists claimed voting machines already had thousands of votes recorded on them when the polls opened. But city officials countered that the activists misunderstood numbers on odometers that records every vote ever cast — not just those for this election.

Yuck. It makes me feel ill to see this stuff going on because of the way our society deals with these problems. This is a huge movement to take away power from the people and put it in the hands of the courts. I can't emphasize this enough: Those in charge no longer trust the American people. Polling places are staffed by volunteers who are now being policed by hired guns from both parties. Instead of trusting that most Americans do the right thing, the assumption is now that most don't. Nobody wants to be ogled by lawyers from the political parties. Yet there they are viewing the voters like children who need to be monitored.

I do recognize that there are voting problems. It seems to me that Democrats like to accuse Republicans of specifically targeting black voters to "disenfranchise" them. Republicans like to accuse Democrats of voter fraud. There is probably some truth in both accusations, but I don't think it's the rule. This year's approach is to assume the worst and the only way to fix the problems is to amass an army of attorneys to "enforce the law". It's disheartening that there is so little trust left.

2000 was the starting point and now there seems no way back. Each election year will become more and more litigious and the voters will become more and more cynical. Our election system is not perfect, but you can't expect perfection when humans do anything. The assumption of perfection only works for lawyers who become rich off of other people's screw ups.

Welcome to my nightmare.

The $5 million campaign by The Media Fund is aimed at television, radio and print outlets in nine battleground states, including Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

"Republicans want you to sit out this election and simply stay home," one radio ad tells listeners. It continues, "Bush is a rich man in the White House who is sending black men and women to be slaughtered in Iraq while Cheney and Halliburton boys get rich on oil. Don't keep getting played."

I won't get into specifically fisking the ad quoted above. It's obvious to anyone paying attention that many whites have been killed in Iraq. When I saw the beheading this week, it was a private contractor, not a black soldier. To say that a bunch of white "boys" are directly profiting from black deaths in the War on Terror is the ultimate low in political negativism.

Back in college, I took a screenwriting course where it was pointed out to me that many black actors in Hollywood that pioneered such shows as "Sanford and Son" and "The Jeffersons", were really starring in shows created, written, and produced by whites. There is some truth to that, but it's really overstated, especially considering the influence these stars had over the production. However, I consider it insulting for whites to try and push their perception of what blacks should be like through the media. This ad campaign is written as if all blacks in America are unemployed, uncounted, second-class citizens. I don't believe that because I can pick up the phone right now and call several African Americans I know who are professional business owners who happen to not be in jail–and they're registered voters.

What the Media Fund is doing is the equivalent of producing an urban gangster movie with nothing but coke-snorting, gun-toting black stereotypes, attempting to appeal to a black audience that isn't really like that what they see on the screen.

Granted, there are problems in the black community, but to simplify them as peripheral results of a President is baseless and dismisses accomplishments in the black community. It's almost as if these political activist groups want the black community arrested in the state they were in during the Civil Rights Movement. I don't write that lightly. I'm not the only one noticing this. In a recent press release, Project 21 denounces this rhetoric.

Project 21 members charge liberal groups are raising the specter of voter suppression in friendly venues such as the Commission to taint the election before it happens. This in itself may keep some voters away from the polls. Furthermore, it creates a climate where these critics can more easily challenge the integrity of the election if they do not approve of the results, even if such charges are groundless.

Negative messages are a natural part of politics and I can accept that. What I don't accept is insulting a group of people just because of their skin color. In fact, I'm beginning to hate the way that pollsters, pundits, and analysts break people up into these voter groups. I'm tired of hearing about the "black bloc vote" and the "all important Hispanic vote" and the "soccer mom vote". The reality is that each individual is going to vote based on personal experience. The level of discourse needs elevate above playing to racial stereotypes. I believe most blacks see through that.

I'm going to qualify the following commentary by disclosing that I'm white. However, I consider myself an objective observer of culture. I love many things about different cultures. However, I also believe in individualism and freedom. In addition, I also believe there is a true American culture that must be defended and respected based on our history of growth and success. In spite of what people would have you believe, this is not a bad country.

With that said, I love black culture. I don't like what's happened to it in recent years. I don't usually speak out about it, being white an all. At the same time, I hate seeing gang culture becoming a mainstream cultural statement. I don't like hip hop music that reduces women to property. We should be moving forward. I prefer to honor positive achievements rather than focusing on fear.

In his book, The Hip-Hop Generation, Bakari Kitwana does an excellent job of explaining this new black cultural problem. I don't agree with many of Kitwana's political conclusions, but this book is an important work worthy of more attention than it received when published. Here is an example of what I mean:

A final obstacle is the unprecedented influence Black youth have achieved through popular culture, especially via the hip-hop phenomenon. Young Blacks have used this access, both in pop film and music, far too much to strengthen associations between Blackness and poverty, while celebrating anti-intellectualism, ignorance, irresponsible parenthood, and criminal lifestyles. This is the paradox: given hip-hop's growing influence, these Birth of a Nation-styled representations receive a free pass from Black leaders and organizations seeking influence with the younger generation. These depictions also escape any real criticism from non-Black critics who, having grown tired of the race card, fear being attacked as a racist. Void of open and consistent criticism, such widely distributed incendiary ideas (what cultural critic Stanley Crouch calls "the new minstrelsy") reinforce myths of Black inferiority and insulate the new problems in African American culture from redemptive criticism.

After I first read the book, I understood the complexity of race relations and why most people miss the boat in dealing with race politically. Kerry's use of the words "Jim Crow" have a profound affect to large black audiences. This is insulting to blacks in general. It's also insulting to whites, like me, who were not even alive during the Jim Crow days and have no love of segregation or racism. I give people more credit than that and obviously Kerry does not. Instead of preaching fear, Kerry should be explaining how he is positive for America. That's what's missing from his message to blacks.

Invoking "Jim Crow" is a cheap tactic, exposing Kerry as out of touch with today's blacks. They are not stupid and they are not an essential "block vote." They are individuals like you and me with different opinions, different classes, different jobs, and different tastes in music and art. Attempting to polarize them through such negative political rhetoric is insulting and undermines how far we have actually come since the Jim Crow days. The Hip Hop Generation correctly points out many of the disparities between blacks and whites in this country, but it's not like it used to be. Many of the problems can be solved culturally in the black community as Kitwana explains in his book.

As I write this article, I keep thinking of my many friends over the years who were black, Chinese, Jordanian, or whatever. Never once did I feel disliked because I'm white. Never once did I feel untrusted or unwelcome. From those positive relationships, I draw my own conclusions. Kerry must not have any black friends.

I've created a new topic on my blog as I try to explore negativity in our culture. I'm going to hit many hot button topics when I do it, but I think it's important to start some real discourse about negativity and how it affects our every day lives.