Sometimes I come across articles that I simply have to share with everyone. This is one such story. In short, an 8th grade girl decided to text a naughty picture of herself to an 8th grade boy, who then sent it to a few of his friends. The school is punishing them (it being a private school), and (hopefully) their parents are having some stern discussions with them as well. However, it’s the last line of the article that really just defines ASININE:

The Atlanta Police Department’s Child Exploitation Unit is reviewing the case for possible prosecution.  The act of “sexting” could result in all the students facing misdemeanor charges of possession of child pornography or felony charges of solicitation and corruption of a minor.

Now, I know those laws are out there to keep creepy 40 year perverts away from children. But seriously, is there no common sense here? These children could be charged with a misdemeanor for having naked pictures… of themselves? They could face Felony charges for corrupting… themselves? Does this make sense to anyone else?

The fact of the matter is that all of these child pornography/solicitation/corruption laws are there to prevent one age group (the 40 year old perverts) from taking advantage of another (the under 18 innocent children). This is a good thing. However, kids today are not nearly as innocent as their parents may want to believe, and it’s time the laws recognize this.

Teenagers have sex. They do drugs. They drink. And you know what? They should face consequences for their actions. If they break the law by drinking underage, they should be punished accordingly. Same for drugs. But if one teenager sleeps with their boyfriend/girlfriend, please tell me how that consists of statutory rape? If they send naked photos to their crush, why should that be child pornography? Is it stupid? Of course! Should they face felony charges? Yeah, not so much…

These laws were written for a specific purpose; it’s time they were revisited.

President Obama recently gave this quote as part of an interview about taxes and budgets:

“Our real problem is not the spike in spending last year, or the lost, even the lost revenues last year, as significant as those are,” he said. “The real problem has to do with the fact that there is a just a mismatch between the amount of money coming in and the amount of money going out. And that is going to require some big, tough choices that, so far, the political system has been unable to deal with.”

On one level, he’s exactly right. If you look at any American family who currently has debt, this principle will hold true. If only the money coming in and the money going out matched! The best get-rich advice I have ever heard is this: “Spend less than you make, and do it over a long period of time.” The only difference between the American families in this situation and the Federal government is that most families don’t have the ability to legislate an increase in the money coming in. While there are some ways to increase the income, most of the time the obvious solution is to spend less. Unfortunately, that just never seems to be an option for the Government.

But is this really the overall issue? Is the problem with the government (or the families in debt) really that the income/expense columns just don’t match up?

In most (but not all) cases, when this happens, there is an underlying cause: a mis-management of money. You buy that expensive car that you didn’t really need, or you take that vacation instead of paying off your student loans. The government is no different. They spend so much money on various pork projects, and then act surprised when there’s no more money left.

The reality is, by saying that your income doesn’t match your expenses, you avoid the underlying question: WHY? Knowing that this is off-balance won’t help you; Your first step is to figure out WHY they’re mismatched.

Of course, the second step is fixing them, and that’s usually even harder than the first….

So quite a few people seem to be upset over the fact that President Obama wants to cancel NASA’s plans for manned missions into space. This means that any plans to go back to the moon, or to hit up mars, are going to be shelved. Now, most of you know my political leanings (if you’ve read this blog at all), and you may be as shocked as I am to hear this, but I actually agree with Obama on this one.

“It means that essentially the US has decided that they’re not going to be a significant player in human space flight for the foreseeable future”

That’s a quote from the Guardian‘s article about the fight to keep NASA’s mission alive.

So, explain to me why exactly it’s a bad thing that the US is not a player in human space flight.

As much as I love the idea of NASA, spaceflight, and going to other planets, the reality is that I don’t see the value in it, especially at this point in time. Why do we need to go back to the moon? What’s the point of trying to send someone to Mars, other than to simply say we’ve been? Even in NASA’s glory days, it was mainly there to make sure the Russians were behind the curve instead of leading it.

I think one of NASA’s biggest problems is that they consistently drain taxpayer money while having very little to show for it. They want to go to the Moon again? Okay…. Why? What’s the point? Make a case for spending billions of dollars to get back to the Moon. The reality is, I haven’t heard a case like that made, ever, outside of ‘Because we can’, or ‘What if the world ends?’

I think Obama has the right idea on this one. Let’s let private companies work on space travel. Let them send people into space, to the moon, etc. I can promise you this much: If private companies do send people into space and to the Moon, they’ve got a damn good reason to do, and they know exactly what their returns will be.

Anyways, those are just my thoughts. What do you think? Am I completely off base here? Should NASA be trying to go to the Moon again? Let me know why!

Oh, one other thing…

I heard someone complain that by cutting the space program back, astronauts and scientists will lose their jobs, whatever shall they do? This is such a hypocritical viewpoint; if anyone ever proposed to eliminate the IRS, these same people would cheer, out-of-work accountants be damned.

However, I wanted to point something out to you, something you may be overlooking in the aftermath of victory. This is a very important point, and one that you should understand thoroughly before you begin to face the 2010 elections. Ready?

Massachusetts didn’t vote for the Republican.

Confused? Well, it’s simple. Nobody voted for Scott Brown because he’s a Republican (well, a few people might have, but last time I checked, Massachusetts was made up of something like 31% Democrats, 18% Republicans and 51% Independents). People voted for him because, by doing so, they were voting against the current policies in Washington. They were voting against the bailouts, against the socialization, and against the government control and power grabs.

Our two-party system is still in place, unfortunately, but it’s in place in name only. Within both parties, you have a wide range of beliefs and representatives, swinging all over the platform. This election should show more than anything else that people want to vote not for a specific party, but for a specific person, a specific set of ideals.

Since the late 90′s, Republicans have been consistently sliding away from their conservative principles. Up to this point, they have still remained a strong force in the government simply because of the ‘lesser of two evils’ mindset. How long will that last? Massachusetts is definitely a starting point, but you have to realize what Scott Brown represents. You have to stand firm in your conservatism. The underlying theme of everything you do should be to lessen the effect of the federal government on this country. Are you hitting those goals? If not, then why? And more importantly, why would you then expect someone to vote for you?

Again, congratulations on your victory, but please don’t let it go to your head. It’s time to buckle down. If the American people want to vote for conservatism and against the government power plays, then you should do everything possible to embrace them with open arms.

Sincerely,

Kevin

Now, picture this: the box is your blog. How can you be different?

This morning, I read an absolutely amazing post about the death of the classic, boring blog, and how people are beginning to move away from it. Of course, this article couldn’t have come at a better time, because I just started the process of redesigning this very blog, and this article just flipped all of my ideas upside down.

After a few redesigns, this was what I was going to use, as of 8am this morning:

Now, however, I’m not so sure.

In designing my new blog layout (and to be perfectly fair, I still wound up grabbing a free design template online and heavily modifying it), I went through hundreds of wordpress themes, and you know what? They were all basically the same. A box of text, some photos, a column (or three)… but they’re out there, and they work, because it’s EASY. I can update my blog in a matter of minutes, piece of cake. The downside to that, though, is that it looks somewhat similar to everyone else’s blog online, and my design tools for each post are basically limited to this:

So here’s the real question: Is this blogazine idea worthwhile? Does it work? Is it worth the time involved in maintaining it?

I know, going through some of the example sites mentioned in that article, there were upsides and downsides to these different formats (Note that these are from a reader’s standpoint, and don’t even begin to address the issues that the blogger/designer would have).

The Pros:

• The design was excellent.
• The articles were better, due to the time involved in publishing them.
• Everything felt a lot more interactive.
• Important quotes or points stood out.

The Cons:

• Navigation was difficult, and it was very hard manuvering throughout the site.
• Being unfamiliar with the layout, I wasn’t sure what was a link and what wasn’t.
• Moving to different articles from within the site was difficult, at best and nearly impossible other times.

All in all, I think the Smashing Magazine article itself was the best example of how this could work, and how it could change the way people write online.

So now, let me know what you think! Here are a few questions I have for you:

1. Is this something that will catch on, or will it remain on the fringe?
2. Would you consider doing trying it on your own blog?
3. What do you think works with this method? What doesn’t?

I know, my nanowrimo novel’s not going to write itself. But there’s too much going on today that I just have to point out.

For example, I just read this article about the GOP’s Health Care reform Bill. This writer makes two very large assumptions in order to spin his argument for the Democratic plan.

• Assumption #1: He assumes that one way to measure success of the bill is based on how many people have healthcare. Well, guess what? There are lots of people out there who CHOOSE not to have healthcare. They might be millionares and not need it. They might never have to visit a hospital. They may believe in wholistic healing, or the power of Christ to heal… Their reasons don’t matter. They have a right to refuse healthcare, and why is it the Federal Governments job to force them into something they don’t want? This is not an accurate way to determine whether a health care reform bill would be successful.
• Assumption #2: Funny math is okay. This guy says that the Republican bill will reduce the deficit by $68 billion, while the Democratic plan will reduce it by over $100 billion. What he doesn’t say is that the Republican bill will cost $8 billion over 10 years, while the Democratic bill will cost over ONE TRILLION. Do those numbers not matter at all?

It’s sad when actual journalists can get away with this kind of spin. I just bet this same guy complains about how biased Fox News is, too…

For those of you wondering what the republican plan consists of, here’s a few points:

1. let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.
2. allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.
3. give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.
4. end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it’s good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.

Notice how this plan doesn’t force anyone to relinquish their right to make their own decisions, and it doesn’t force businesses to play by a set of asinine rules. Conveniently enough, it also manages to let the Federal Government play a minimal role in matters of Health.

So anyways, there you go. Let me know what you think. Is one plan better than the other? What should be included under the broad banner of ‘Health Care Reform?’ Would you trust the Federal government to implement ANY plan? Feel free to leave your thoughts in the comments section!

So over the past three days, I’ve learned a few things:

• Sometimes, you just can’t write. Don’t force it, just wait it out and make up the difference later.
• TV and internet can be VERY destracting.
• Writing conversations is much easier, and honestly a lot more fun.
• The comments tool is your friend; you can always go back and fix things.
• If you’re nanowrimo time zone settings are off, it will cause you problems.
• Backup, Backup, Backup!
• While a title’s not necessary this early, it’s fun to think about.
• It’s a definite time-killer when you delete entire lines of text in order to go back and fix one typo.

I’ve got 2007 words to write today in order to be fully caught up. We’re planning on a write-in at Battle and Brew before geek trivia; hopefully that will give me enough time.

If you want to follow my progress, you can watch my wordcount rise over at www.nanowrimo.com.

Today is November 1st, which means that it’s the start of National Novel Writing Month. The goal is to write a 50,000 word novel in 30 days.

I’m currently at 543.

My story will hopefully be about blackmail and secrecy, and will hopefully be actually a decent story when it’s all said and done.

But be warned: for the next month or so, all you’ll probably see on this blog is updates about the novel.

If you want to see my status updates, you can always follow me on Nanowrimo’s website (if you’re writing, let me know and I’ll add you to my friend’s list!)

It’s no secret that Hollywood is concerned with it’s future.
Movies are no longer the huge, moneymaking monsters that they used to be. Recently, Hollywood has placed all of the blame on those evil pirates, who download illegal copies of the movie instead of buying them. Now, however, they have a new theory: they’re losing money because people can rent DVD’s instead of buying them. Their solution? Force people to either buy the DVD or wait a month before renting it.
Now, let’s be honest, there are a multitude of reasons why movies are no longer the moneymakers that they once were:

1. Movies generally suck. I hate to say it, but either Hollywood stopped caring, or we as an audience grew smarter, because you can no longer throw a crappy movie together and just assume it will make money.
2. The movie-going experience is even worse. Seriously, why would you pay $10 a person (plus whatever you spend on food) to go to a theater, listen to a screaming kid, have your chair kicked, and step in some weird goo that’s covering the floor? For that price, you can get UNLIMITED movie rentals via mail, watch them on your HDTV with surround sound from the peace and quiet of your own home, and, most importantly, never miss a second of the movie when you’ve got to pee.
3. Consumer Change in Attitude. The internet has been a game changer for everyone, and Hollywood’s no different. People are simply becoming used to the ad-based model (think of Hulu.com) as well as the competition that sites such as amazon bring. Consumers can’t see the reason to pay $10 per ticket or $20 per DVD when there are better things to spend money on.
4. Piracy. Yes, that’s right, I’m sure it makes a difference (although not nearly as large as Hollywood proclaims it to be). But here’s the real question: out of all those people who download a movie, how many of them would actually fork over the $10 to go see it in a theater?
5. Convenience. Again, probably due to the ‘instant’ nature of the internet, we have become used to a high level of convenience that Hollywood, honestly, just doesn’t provide. For example, lets say I want to watch a movie on an airplane. Well, to put it on my phone, I have to buy the DVD, find some way of ripping it to my computer, find some way of converting it to an iPhone supported format, and then transfer it. Even renting movies are a huge hassle (drive to the store, browse for it, hope they have it in stock, drive home) compared to what they could be. While iTunes and Netflix on-demand are a start, Hollywood should be embracing the ease of use the internet brings, not fighting it. Customers want simplicity; denying them that will just make them go elsewhere

So, those are just a few of the problems Hollywood’s facing. The reality? They need a complete shift, a 180 degree turnaround. Here’s a great example: The RIAA (i.e., the Music industry). They are fighting tooth and nail to keep the same model they’ve had for decades, and as a result, customers and artists alike are jumping ship.

Hollywood needs to act before they follow in the RIAA’s shoes. Change your business model; the current one’s not working. Try new stuff, like the internet, or same day releases in theater and online, and see what happens. Sure, some of it might not work, but some might, and all you really need is one big break (like iTunes gave musicians) and you might really start taking off. Instead of releasing 97 bad movies and 3 good ones every year, focus and invest on those 3, and take them from good to mind-blowing. Today’s not about quantity, it’s about quality.

Overall, Hollywood, keep in mind that you exist because we, the consumers, exist. Don’t cut yourself off from us, but embrace us, figure out what we want, and then find a way to provide that. Everyone wants you to succeed, but you’re going to need to seriously change your business strategies in order to truly become successful in today’s world.

I just read an article on how to raise kids without religion. And it was serious. I feel a little sick…

The article they were referencing was posted on atheists.org, and was written specifically for other atheist parents. Honestly, even though I’m not an atheist, I thought it was a pretty decent article about raising children. Here are a few of the points I got out of it:

• Love your child unconditionally
• Teach them to think outside the box
• Teach them to question the status quo
• Teach them to help others
• Teach them how to handle adversity/bigotry from classmates

To me, this is all good advice. Should we ignore it simply because it comes from an atheist perspective? I think that too often it’s easy to reject advice or opinions simply because it comes from a different viewpoint. For example, pretend the article was reversed. Say it was written to Christian parents to help teach their children how to deal with atheists (or any other religion, for that matter)… Would you still be as upset?

The reality is, when it comes to other religions or beliefs, you shouldn’t disregard them simply because you don’t agree with their core values.

*apologies to the atheists: not once, while typing this entire post, was I ever able to spell ‘atheist’ correctly on the first go-around. No idea why…